Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests:

a subregional report

from the Southern Forest Futures Project

Tara Keyser, Joy Malone, Claudia Cotton, and Jeffrey Lewis

Forest Service

Research & Development

Southern Research Station

General Technical Report SRS-188

United States Department of Agriculture
February 2014

Southern Research Station

200 W.T. Weaver Blvd.

Asheville, NC 28804

www.srs.fs.usda.gov

The Authors:

Tara Keyser is a Research Forester for Upland Hardwood 

Ecology and Management Work Unit, Southern Research 

Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service; 

Joy Malone is a Recreation Staff Officer at the Daniel 

Boone National Forest, Southern Region, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service; Claudia Cotton is a Forest Soil 

Scientist at the Daniel Boone National Forest, Southern Region, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service; and 

Jeffrey Lewis is a Forester at the Daniel Boone National 

Forest, Southern Region, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service.

Cover photos

main image: new growth on northern red oak (David Lee, Bugwood.org)

top row l to r: white oak fruits (Paul Wray, Iowa State University, 

Bugwood.org); northern red oak leaves (Becca MacDonald, Sault College, 

Bugwood.org); dormant northern red oak (David Lee, Bugwood.org); white 

oak foliage (David Stephens, Bugwood.org); spraying insecticidal soap to 

treat infested hemlocks (Great Smoky Mountains National Park Resource 

Management Archive, USDI National Park Service, Bugwood.org)

Disclaimer

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information 

and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of 

any product or service.
Outlook for

Appalachian-Cumberland

Forests:

a subregional report

from the southern forest futures project

Tara Keyser, Joy Malone, Claudia Cotton, and Jeffrey Lewis

Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | prologue

prologue

This report describes a set of likely forest futures and the 

management implications associated with each for the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland, one of five subregions 

of the U.S. South. Its findings are based on the findings of 

the Southern Forest Futures Project, a multi-agency effort 

to anticipate the future and to analyze what the interaction 

of future changes might mean for forests and the benefits 

they provide in the 13 Southern States. The Futures Project 

investigators examined a labyrinth of driving factors, forest 

outcomes, and human implications to describe how the 

landscape of the South might change. Their findings, which 

are detailed in a 17 chapter technical report (Wear and Greis 

2013) and synthesized in a compact summary report (Wear 

and Greis 2012), consist of analyses of specific forecasts and 

natural resource issues. Because of the great variations across 

southern forest ecosystems, the Futures Project also draws 

out findings and management implications for each of five 

subregions (fig. P1) including the one addressed in this report.

Why spend several years sorting through the various facets 

of this complicated puzzle? The reasons are varied but they 

all revolve around one notion: knowing more about how the 

future might unfold can improve near term decisions that 

have long-term consequences. For example, knowing more 

about future land use changes and timber markets can guide 

investment decisions. Knowing more about the intersection 

of anticipated urbanization, intensive forestry, and imperiled 

species can guide forest conservation policy and investments. 

And knowing more about the potential development of 

fiber markets can inform and improve bioenergy policies. 

Mid-South

Coastal Plain

Piedmont

Coastal Plain

Appalachian-Cumberland

Mississippi 

AV

Figure P1—The five subregions of the U.S. South.

David N. Wear, Project Leader,

Center for Integrated Forest Science and Synthesis, 

U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

John G. Greis, Resource Analyst, 

State & Private Forestry, 

U.S. Forest Service, Southern Region

Tallahassee, FL 32399

The Southern Forest Futures Project Co-Leaders
iv A Subregional Report from the Southern Forest Futures Project

Consequently, the intended users of the Futures Project 

findings are natural resource decisionmakers, professionals, 

and policy analysts as well as those members of society who 

care about natural resource sustainability.

From the dozens of detailed topic-specific findings in the 

technical report, 10 were identified and discussed in the 

Futures Project summary report. They are:

• The interactions among four primary factors will define 

the future forests of the South: population growth, climate 

change, timber markets, and invasive species.

• Urbanization is forecasted to cause losses in forest acreage, 

increased carbon emissions, and stress to forest resources.

• Southern forests could sustain higher timber production 

levels; however, demand is the limiting factor, and demand 

growth is uncertain.

• Increased use of wood-based bioenergy could generate 

demands that are large enough to trigger changes in forest 

conditions, management, and markets.

• A combination of factors, including population growth 

and climate change, has the potential to decrease water 

availability and degrade quality; forest conservation and 

management can help to mitigate these effects.

• Nonnative invasive species (insects, pathogens, and plants) 

present a large but uncertain potential for ecological 

changes and economic losses.

• Fire-related hazards in wildlands would be exacerbated 

by an extended fire season combined with obstacles to 

prescribed burning that would accompany increased 

urbanization (particularly in response to air quality and 

highway smoke issues).

• Private owners continue to control forest futures, but 

ownership patterns are becoming less stable.

• Threats to species of conservation concern are widespread 

but are especially concentrated in the Coastal Plain and the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland.

• Increasing populations would increase demand for forestbased recreation while the availability of land to meet these 

needs is forecasted to decline.

The impetus for the Southern Forest Futures Project comes 

from a desire to understand how a wide variety of dynamics 

including economic, demographic, and environmental 

changes might affect forest resources. An assessment of 

some aspects of forest sustainability (Wear and Greis 2002a, 

2002b) was completed a decade ago, but the rapid pace of 

change and the sudden emergence of new and complex 

natural resource issues prompted a new study that could 

take advantage of recent science findings and forecasting 

methods. In December 2007 the Futures Project got 

underway under the joint sponsorship of the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service and the Southern Group of 

State Foresters.

Designing the Futures Project

The Futures Project investigators started by identifying a 

set of relevant questions and then defining a targeted and 

robust process for answering them. Their process consisted 

of enumerating the critical socioeconomic and biophysical 

changes affecting forests, defining the most important 

management and policy information needs, and addressing 

forecasts and questions at the most useful scale of analysis. 

A series of public information gathering sessions addressed 

the first two stages of the process: more than 600 participants 

with a wide array of backgrounds and perspectives—at 

14 meetings, with at least one meeting in each of the 13 

Southern States—contributed input on what they saw as 

the important issues and future uncertainties affecting 

forests (Wear and others 2009). These meetings shaped the 

thinking about alternative futures and led to the selection 

and definition of meta-issues, each of which describes an 

interrelated complex of questions (for example, the bioenergy 

meta-issue is constructed from a set of questions that address 

conversion technologies, impacts on sustainability, Federal 

and State policies, and economic impacts).

The South defines a discernible biological and 

socioeconomic region of the United States, but also contains 

a vast diversity of biota and socioeconomic settings within 

its boundaries. The meta-issues and the forecasts of future 

conditions were analyzed at the broad regional level, with 

results broken down to finer grains of analysis where feasible 

and appropriate. However, the broad-scale approach was not 

considered adequate to address specific implications that 

these forecasts and issue analyses hold for forest management 

and restoration activities in more localized conditions; doing 

so required a scale that more closely matched the different 

forest ecosystem types in the South (fig. P2).

DĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞƐƚŽƌĂƚŝŽŶŝŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐ

^ƵďƌĞŐŝŽŶĂůŶĂůLJƐŝƐ

/ŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐĨŽƌǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĞĐŽƐLJƐƚĞŵƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ

DĞƚĂͲ/ƐƐƵĞŶĂůLJƐŝƐ

&ŽƌĞĐĂƐƚŽĨƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐĂŶĚƵƐĞƐ

&ŽƌĞĐĂƐƚŝŶŐŶĂůLJƐŝƐ

Figure P2—The three phases of the Southern Forest Futures Project.
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | prologue v

Thus the second phase of the Futures Project, in which 

separate efforts examined the management/restoration 

implications for the five subregions of the South: Coastal Plain, 

Piedmont, Appalachian-Cumberland highland, Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley, and Mid-South (which includes all of Texas 

and Oklahoma). Still further spatial resolution was provided by 

breaking the subregions into a number of ecological sections; 

some issues are discussed at that scale as well.

The analytical centerpiece of the Futures Project is a set of 

forecasting models contained in the U.S. Forest Assessment 

System, which was developed for the U.S. Forest Service 

2010 Resources Planning Act (RPA) Assessment as a 

means of conducting national forecasts. The system uses 

global projections of climate, technological, population, and 

economic variables to drive the simulation of changes in 

land uses, forest uses, and forest conditions at a fine spatial 

scale—thus facilitating subregional and other fine scale 

analyses. Specific RPA scenarios were chosen that define the 

set of variables that “drive” the forecasts, linking national 

economic and climate changes to the worldviews contained 

in international climate assessments (Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change 2007).

Although the Futures Project tiered directly to the 

2010 RPA Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2012), its 

investigators developed more specific implications for the 

South within the bounds of the scientific literature.

Perhaps the only absolute truth about any forecast is that 

it will be an inaccurate description of future reality to 

one degree or another and that the best—that is, the most 

accurate—forecast is not likely to be known ahead of time. 

As a result, forecasters hedge their expectations of future 

conditions by including a range of plausible futures and thus 

addressing the risk of generating precise forecasts of the 

wrong future.

The Futures Project investigators considered a large number 

of scenarios based on the 2010 RPA Assessment and public 

input, and then narrowed them to a half dozen that captured 

the broad range of potential conditions. These “Cornerstone 

Futures” define six combinations of climate, economic, 

population, and forest-products sector projections (fig. P3). 

The assumption was that unfolding events would be captured 

by a future that is close to one of the Cornerstone Futures. 

The validity of this assumption, however, will only be 

revealed by the course of future events.

Forecasts provide practical insights only when they are 

examined in the light of specific issues and historical 

changes. The meta-issues provided specific questions to 

be addressed using the forecasts along with other available 

information. For some meta-issues, such as water or fire, 

additional models helped translate forest forecasts into 

specific implications. For other meta-issues, such as taxes or 

ownership, a more qualitative approach linked the analysis of 

meta-issues to forecasts. But for each meta-issue, the analysis 

started with a thorough synthesis of historical trends, a 

description of the current situation, and a summary of the 

relevant scientific literature.

This report draws together the findings from the 17 chapters 

of the Southern Forest Futures Project technical report 

(Wear and Greis 2013) to isolate the findings of most critical 

consequences for management and policy decisionmaking 

within the Appalachian-Cumberland highland. The findings 

described here also offer an interpretation of the most 

important findings from the technical report and their 

implications for forest management and restoration activities 

within the Appalachian-Cumberland highland.

DŽĚĞƌĂƚĞ

ƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ

ŚŝŐŚŝŶĐŽŵĞ

ŐƌŽǁƚŚ;ƐƚŽƌLJůŝŶĞ

ϭͿ

>ŽǁƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶ

ĂŶĚůŽǁŝŶĐŽŵĞ

ŐƌŽǁƚŚ;ƐƚŽƌLJůŝŶĞ

ϮͿ

,ŝŐŚƚŝŵďĞƌƉƌŝĐĞƐ ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ

;D/ZK'DͿ

ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ

;^/ZK'DͿ

>ŽǁƚŝŵďĞƌƉƌŝĐĞƐ ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ

;^/ZK'DͿ

ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ

;,ĂĚůĞLJ'DͿ

ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ

;ďĂƐĞĚŽŶ

ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ͕

ǁŝƚŚŚŝŐŚƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐ

ƌĂƚĞƐͿ

ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ&

;ďĂƐĞĚŽŶ

ŽƌŶĞƌƐƚŽŶĞ͕

ǁŝƚŚůŽǁƉůĂŶƚŝŶŐ

ƌĂƚĞƐͿ

Figure P3—Six Cornerstone Futures, each of which represents a general 

circulation model (MIROC3.2, CSIROMK3.5, CSIROMK2, or HadCM3) 

paired with one of two emission scenarios (A1B representing lowpopulation/high-economic growth, high energy use, and B2 representing 

moderate growth and use) and two timber price futures; and then extended 

by evaluating forest planting rates above and below current levels. 

Sources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007); USDA 

Forest Service (2012).
vi A Subregional Report from the Southern Forest Futures Project

The Cornerstone Futures

Southern Forest Futures Project investigators developed six Cornerstone Futures (A to F) to describe the factors 

that are likely to drive changes in southern forests. The Cornerstone Futures were selected to represent the range of 

findings from a much broader set of possibilities that were developed by combining county-level population/income 

and climate projections, assumptions about future timber scarcity, and assumptions about tree planting rates (Wear 

and Greis 2012, 2013).

County-level forecasts of population and income, variables critical to the Cornerstone Futures, were projected within 

the context of two global perspectives on socioeconomic change—downscaled descriptions of demographic change 

and economic growth (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007)—to construct global forecasts of climate 

changes and their implications. The first yielded about a 40-percent growth in overall population from 2010 to 2060, 

and the second yielded a higher rate of 60 percent. The projections vary by county, with the populations of some 

counties growing substantially and others shrinking.

Timber price futures either describe increasing or decreasing scarcity with an orderly progression of real prices: 

assumed to be 1 percent per year from a base in 2005 through 2060. Real returns to agricultural land uses were also 

held constant throughout the forecasts for all Cornerstone Futures.

Each of the population/income projections embedded in the Cornerstone Futures is linked to a worldwide emissions 

storyline that drives alternative climate forecasts. The result was three climate projections driven by the population/

economic projections and downscaled to the county level. Forecasted variables included changes in temperature, 

precipitation, and derived potential evapotranspiration. One climate forecast was selected for each of the Cornerstone 

Futures in a way that incorporated the full range of climate projections. These are taken from four downscaled climate 

models—MIROC3.2, CSIROMK2, CSIROMK3.5, and HadCM3.

Cornerstones A through D are defined by the matrix formed by intersecting low and high population and income 

forecasts with increasing and decreasing timber price futures as described above:

Cornerstone A—High population/income growth with increasing timber prices and baseline tree planting rates.

Cornerstone B—High population/income growth with decreasing timber prices and baseline tree planting rates.

Cornerstone C—Low population/income growth with increasing timber prices and baseline tree planting rates.

Cornerstone D—Low population/income growth with decreasing timber prices and baseline tree planting rates.

These four Cornerstones assume rates of post-harvesting tree planting that are based on future planting forecasts 

derived from planting frequencies between the latest two forest survey periods for all States and all major forest types 

(data from Forest Inventory and Analysis, Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service). Because this was a period 

of rapid expansion in planted pine, perhaps associated with displacement of harvesting from the Western United 

States, baseline rates were set at 50 percent of the observed frequencies.

Cornerstones E and F depart from the first four, with Cornerstone E increasing planting rates by 50 percent for 

Cornerstone A (strong economic growth and expanding timber markets); and Cornerstone F decreasing planting rates 

by 50 percent for Cornerstone D (reduced economic growth and decreasing timber markets).

Forecasts for the Cornerstone Futures provide the foundation for understanding the potential implications of the metaissues identified by the Futures Project.
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | prologue vii

Literature Cited

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. IPCC fourth

assessment report: climate change 2007 (AR4). http://www.ipcc.

ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm.

[Date accessed: March 3, 2013].

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2012. 

Future of America’s forest and rangelands: Forest Service 2010 

Resources Planning Act Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-87. 

Washington, DC. 198 p.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. 2002a. The Southern Forest Resource 

Assessment: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 635 p.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G. 2002b. The Southern Forest Resource 

Assessment: summary report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-54. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station. 103 p.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G.; Walters, N. 2009. The Southern Forest 

Futures Project: using public input to define the issues. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. SRS-115. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 17 p.

Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. 2012. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: summary report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-168. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 54 p.

Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. 2013. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 542 p.
viii A Subregional Report from the Southern Forest Futures Project

Prologue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Acknowledgments ix

Abstract ix

Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Chapter 1 1

The Forests and People of the

Appalachian-Cumberland Highland

Chapter 2. 13

Changes in the Physical Environment

Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Climate Change Forecasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter 3 23

The Human Footprint

Population, Demography, and Economic Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The Shifting Societal Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Land Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Chapter 4 37

Biological Threats

Invasive Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Insect and Disease Pests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Chapter 5 45

Effects on Forests and their Values

Forest Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Wildlife and Forest Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Water and Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

Outdoor Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

Management Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

CONTENTS
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND ABSTRACT ix

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Shawna Reid, Dawn Lemke, and Jennifer Moore Myers for their 

time and effort in creating the GIS-related maps, Dr. Susan Loeb for providing verbiage 

regarding White Nose Syndrome, and the Southern Forest Futures technical report authors 

for providing initial reviews of the syntheses provided in this publication. We also thank 

the many peer reviewers, including the State Foresters in the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland, whose comments greatly improved the publication. Lastly, we acknowledge the 

time and effort of Dr. David Loftis (Research Forester, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Emeritus) who was involved in the early stages 

of development of the Appalachian-Cumberland publication.

AbstrAct

The U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland consists of about 62.3 million acres in 

portions of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia; and 

is divided into five sections—Blue Ridge Mountains; Interior Low Plateau; Northern 

Ridge and Valley; Southern Ridge and Valley; and Cumberland Plateau and Mountains. 

Appalachian-Cumberland forests provide a multitude of ecological services and societal 

benefits. This publication presents results from the Southern Forest Futures Project specific 

to the Appalachian-Cumberland subregion, along with associated challenges to forest 

management. Forecasted scenarios suggest that environmental conditions, nonnative 

insects and diseases, forest fragmentation, and increased societal pressure on forest land 

could create novel conditions that affect ecosystem structure and function. Continued 

changes in the societal forces that shape forest conditions, including urbanization, have the 

potential to affect many of the ecosystem services provided by Appalachian-Cumberland 

forests, including commercial and noncommercial forest products (such as timber 

harvesting and mushroom collecting), water quantity and quality, recreation, wildlife 

habitat, and biological complexity.

Keywords: Appalachian-Cumberland, conservation, forest management, Southern Forest 

Futures Project.
x A Subregional Report from the Southern Forest Futures Project

l The Appalachian-Cumberland highland consists of five sections: Blue Ridge 

Mountains, Cumberland Plateau and Mountains, Northern Ridge and Valley, Southern 

Ridge and Valley, and Interior Low Plateau. It encompasses about 62.3 million acres, of 

which 51.9 million acres are held by non-Federal entities in parts of Alabama, Georgia, 

North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia. Detailed synthesis of the 17-chapter 

Southern Forest Futures Project technical report (Wear and Greis 2013) reveals numerous 

key findings specific to the Appalachian-Cumberland highland.

l Families and individuals own two out of every three acres of private forest land in the 

South. The majority of family forest owners hold 1 to 9 acres. However, the majority of 

family forest acres are in holdings of 100 acres or more. Parcelization and fragmentation of 

forests are expected to continue as private owners divest their holdings in the future.

l Unlike other areas of the South (such as the Piedmont and Coastal Plain, which are 

dominated by softwoods) where changes in forest conditions are more heavily influenced 

by harvesting and forest management and are thereby linked to future timber markets, 

Appalachian-Cumberland landscapes are dominated by hardwoods, meaning that the 

condition and status of forests are most heavily influenced by urbanization-driven land use 

changes, changes that are closely linked to population and income.

l The Appalachian-Cumberland highland is forecasted to experience an increase in 

temperature under all projections. Relative to the 10-year historical average (1997 to 2006), 

however, only minor changes in average decadal precipitation are forecasted.

l Although one of the smaller subregions of the South, the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland contains a highly diverse suite of plant and animal communities and contains 

many endemic species that depend on its specific physical, climatic, and biological 

attributes. Urbanization-driven changes in land use coupled with loss of forest land and loss 

of forest connectivity near metropolitan areas could threaten the diversity and abundance 

of bats, salamanders, and concentrations of sensitive plant species. Furthermore, increased 

habitat fragmentation could make migration in response to climate and disturbances 

difficult. Recreational use, which is expected to increase concomitant with increased 

urbanization will likely be an additional pressure on rare and endemic communities.

l Regardless of climate, a change from forest to urban land uses, coupled with increases 

in population, would increase water supply stress across the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland. Because water stress is sensitive to population changes, the highest proportional 

increase in water stress is expected to occur where urban land uses and rates of 

urbanization and population growth are forecasted to be highest.

l The invasion of forest communities by nonnative invasive plants is driven by habitat 

fragmentation, parcelization, increasing population, increasing recreation use, and forest 

disturbance—all of which are forecasted to increase under all projections. Climate change 

would likely accelerate the rate of invasion in a given area, but would also facilitate 

movement of specific species into new ecosystems. Loss of forest productivity, coupled 

with the negative effects nonnative invasive plants have on other ecosystem services, would 

make the control of invasive plants an important ecological as well as economic concern.

Key Findings
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests xi | KEY FINDINGS

l Insects and diseases are a prominent disturbance in Appalachian-Cumberland forests 

and will continue to influence forest structure, function, and composition during the 

next 50 years. Insect and disease outbreaks have the potential to all but eliminate certain 

species (such as eastern and Carolina hemlocks) from the ecosystem, with cascading 

ecological consequences.

l Compared to other subregions (Piedmont, Coastal Plain, Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 

and the Mid-South) of the South, the Appalachian-Cumberland highland is forecasted to 

experience the highest growth rate of urban land use.

l The forecasted area of non-Federal urban land in the Appalachian-Cumberland highland 

is expected to increase from the 1997 base of about 3.9 million acres to 10.6 million 

acres by 2060, an increase of about 172 percent under projections of high population and 

economic growth. Under all projections, non-Federal forest area is forecasted to decrease 

by 5 (1.4 million acres) to 13 percent (3.7 million acres) over the next 50 years (2010 to 

2060). Loss of forest acreage, largely a consequence of urbanization-driven changes in 

land use, is most visible in and around current Appalachian-Cumberland population 

centers. Cropland and pastureland uses, which are heavily driven by timber prices, are also 

expected to decrease at varying degrees.

l From 1998 to 2008, the forest products industry divested about three-fourths of its 

timber holdings. Of the States that have land in the Appalachian-Cumberland highland, 

most of the increases in corporate ownership have been in timber investment management 

organizations. Two States, Alabama and Georgia, also experienced an increase in real 

estate investment trusts.

l Based on moderate population growth predictions, the projected growth for the South is 

about 60 percent. Growth rates for participation in outdoor recreation activities are expected 

to increase as well.

l Recreation participation is expected to increase over the next 50 years. For some 

activities, the annual per capita participation could decrease over the next 50 years. 

However, even with decreasing rates of participation, the increasing population numbers 

would mean that the overall participation in all activities would increase. At the same time, 

the land base for forest recreation activities is expected to be either fairly stable (for public 

land), or decreasing (private lands). Demand for forest land available for recreational 

activities will likely continue to increase as land available for those activities decreases.

l Wildfire will continue to be a threat to life and property throughout the AppalachianCumberland highland, and would be exacerbated by continued population growth, 

increased recreation pressure, and climate change. Projections of the extent of drying 

and increased wildfire potential vary according to the climate assumptions and season, 

ranging from severe drying conditions as measured by the potential drought index to little 

difference in dryness.

Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 1 1

One of five subregions of the U.S. South (along with the 

Coastal Plain, Piedmont, Mid-South, and Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley), the Appalachian-Cumberland highland 

emerges from the Piedmont to the east and south and 

from the Coastal Plain to the west, encompassing parts of 

Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, 

and Virginia. It contains about 62.3 million acres and 

is divided into five sections (figs. 1 and 2): Blue Ridge 

Mountains, Interior Low Plateau, Northern Ridge and Valley, 

Southern Ridge and Valley, and Cumberland Plateau and 

Mountains (Bailey and others 1994).

Forests across the subregion are broadly characterized by 

age class distribution (with age classes divided into 10-year 

segments) and management type—oak-pine (Quercus spp.–

Pinus spp.), planted pine, natural pine, upland hardwoods, 

lowland hardwoods, and nonstocked stands (stands that 

have <10 stocking in live trees). The upland hardwood forest 

management type dominates, followed distantly by oak-pine 

stands. The oak-pines, lowland hardwood, and natural pines 

approximate a normal distribution, with the majority of stands 

ages 31 to 60 years. In contrast, upland hardwoods are heavily 

skewed towards the older age classes and the majority of 

planted pine stands are in the younger age classes (fig. 3).

Chapter 1.

The Forests and People of the 

Appalachian-Cumberland Highland

C o a s t a l 

P l a i n

C o a s t a l

 P l a i n

P i e d m o n t

PIKE

JACKSON

OHIO

LEE

AUGUSTA

WAYNE GILES

BATH

CLAY

KNOX

MADISON

MAURY

SWAIN

POLK

HARDIN

SEVIER

WISE

PULASKI

LEWIS

LOGAN

SCOTT

SCOTT

ASHE

HART

TRIGG

BURKE

WILSON

GREENE

BELL

MONROE

BLOUNT

MACON

KNOX

WAYNE

ADAIR

CHRISTIAN TODD

MORGAN

HICKMAN

LINCOLN

CASEY

MARION

SMYTH

WYTHE

LAWRENCE

ROCKINGHAM

SUMNER

COCKE

WARREN

PERRY

HOPKINS

GILES

RHEA

BARREN

LESLIE

FLOYD

WHITE

PAGE

MORGAN

HARLAN

NELSON

FRANKLIN

FLOYD

BUNCOMBE

LAUREL

OWEN

HAMILTON

UNION

GILMER

DAVIESS

LEE

ALLEN

ROANE

LAWRENCE

BATH

BUTLER

HAWKINS

DICKSON

LAUDERDALE

RABUN

BLAND

COFFEE

FANNIN

HAYWOOD

LIMESTONE

MCMINN JACKSON

RUSSELL

SMITH

CRAIG

KNOTT

GRAYSON

NELSON

DAVIDSON

UNION

CLAY

STEWART

CARROLL

CARTER

WHITLEY

PERRY TAZEWELL

WARREN

AMHERST

CUMBERLAND

SHELBY

BEDFORD

LYON

PUTNAM MADISON

MADISON

FENTRESS

CAMPBELL

WILLIAMSON

MEADE

ROCKBRIDGE

LEWIS

GRAYSON

BREATHITT

SULLIVAN

BUCHANAN

RUTHERFORD

BOTETOURT

OVERTON CALDWELL

HUMPHREYS

CLAY

MARION

BLEDSOE

MORGAN

CARTER

SCOTT

HENRY

GRUNDY

CHEROKEE

WASHINGTON

MACON

GREEN

HIGHLAND

LARUE

FLEMING

PULASKI

DE KALB

LINCOLN

YANCEY

MCDOWELL

BRECKINRIDGE

UNION

ESTILL

CLARK

CLAIBORNE

MCCREARY

ROWAN

ROBERTSON

BULLITT

AVERY

LAWRENCE

GRANT

MONROE

MONTGOMERY

JACKSON

HENDERSON

TAYLOR LETCHER

GREENUP

BOONE

BRADLEY

GRAHAM

WEBSTER

JACKSON

MASON

JEFFERSON FAYETTE

WATAUGA

LUMPKIN

WOLFE

RUSSELL

MCLEAN

ANDERSON

MARTIN

HARRISON

HENDERSON

MERCER

ELLIOTT BOURBON

LOUDON

CRITTENDEN

BOYD

DICKENSON

BOYLE

JOHNSON

JEFFERSON

EDMONSON

SIMPSON CLINTON

TOWNS

MENIFEE

OWSLEY

OLDHAM

POWELL

HOUSTON

SPENCER

ALLEGHANY

ALLEGHANY

FREDERICK

SHENANDOAH

MARSHALL

MUHLENBERG

MEIGS

CALDWELL

JOHNSON

ROANOKE

CANNON

MAGOFFIN

GRAINGER

LIVINGSTON

CHEATHAM

METCALFE

UNICOI

MONTGOMERY

TRANSYLVANIA

WARREN

WASHINGTON

VAN BUREN

ROCKCASTLE

GARRARD

PENDLETON

MITCHELL

HANCOCK

CLARKE

CUMBERLAND

WASHINGTON

BRACKEN

FRANKLIN

SEQUATCHIE

PICKETT

HANCOCK

KENTON

NICHOLAS

HAMBLEN

TRIMBLE

ANDERSON

MOORE

WOODFORD

JESSAMINE

CAMPBELL

CARROLL

MONTGOMERY

GALLATIN

TROUSDALE

ROBERTSON

ROANOKE

SALEM

STAUNTON

BRISTOL

GALAX

HARRISONBURG

RADFORD

WAYNESBORO

NORTON

WINCHESTER

BUENA VISTA

COVINGTON

LEXINGTON CLIFTON FORGE

Miles

0 25 50 75 100

Blue Ridge 

Northern Ridge and Valley

Southern Ridge and Valley

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains

Interior Low Plateau

County boundary

Section boundary

Subregion boundary

State boundary

Figure 1—U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland sections and counties.
2 Chapter 1 | The Forests and People of the Appalachian-Cumberland Highland

Blue Ridge Mountains

The Blue Ridge Mountains section is located southeast of 

the Northern Ridge and Valley section and northwest of 

the western Piedmont (fig. 1). Most of the section occurs 

in western North Carolina, with smaller parts occurring 

in southwestern Virginia, eastern Tennessee, and northern 

Georgia. Blue Ridge counties in Virginia are Floyd, Carroll, 

Nelson, Amherst, and Grayson; in eastern Tennessee 

they are Cocke, Sevier, Monroe, Unicoi, Carter, Polk, and 

Johnson; in northern Georgia they are Rabun, Towns, Union, 

Lumpkin, Fannin, and Gilmer; and in North Carolina, they 

are Alleghany, Ashe, Watauga, Avery, Mitchell, Yancey, 

McDowell, Madison, Buncombe, Haywood, Burke, 

Caldwell, Henderson, Jackson, Transylvania, Macon, Clay, 

Cherokee, Graham, and Swain.

The section covers 9,735,550 acres, of which 6,422,080 

acres are held by non-Federal entities. The terrain is very 

mountainous, with relatively large urban areas concentrated 

around the section’s largest city, Asheville, NC. Across the 

section, forest land covers 6,422,070 acres, or 67 percent of 

the non-Federal land base. Because flat and gentle terrain 

is uncommon throughout the section, only 21 percent of 

the non-Federal land base is classified as agricultural land 

(pastureland or cropland).

Landform—The Blue Ridge Mountains section is a high 

upland characteristic of a dissected mature erosion surface 

(Smith 1994). It consists of several distinct topographic 

areas (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 2006), including the Blue Ridge 

Escarpment on its eastern edge, the New River Plateau on 

its northern edge, interior low and intermediate mountains 

throughout, intermountain basins between major mountains, 

and—most common—high mountains (with 46 peaks 

>6,000 feet). Elevations range from about 400 feet in the 

southern part to >6,600 feet at the crest of the Great Smoky 

and Black Mountain ranges (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006). The three 

highest peaks east of the Mississippi River (Mt. Mitchell at 

6,680 feet, Mt. Craig at 6,647 feet, and Clingman’s Dome at 

6,643 feet) are all in this section.

Acres (millions)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Blue

Ridge

Mountains

Interior

Low

Plateau

Northern

Ridge and

Valley

Southern 

Ridge and

Valley

Cumberland

Plateau and

Mountains

Georgia

North Carolina

Tennessee

Virginia

Kentucky

Alabama

Figure 3—Age class distribution, 2010, of planted pine, natural pine, oakpine, upland hardwoods, and lowland hardwoods forest management types 

across the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland. Area (million acres)

Age class

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81+

Planted pine

Natural pine

Oak-pine

Upland hardwoods

Lowland hardwoods

What is non-Federal land?

For the purposes of this publication, non-Federal 

land includes land held by private organizations, 

individuals, families, local governments, Indian 

reservations, and U.S. States. It does not include 

U.S. military bases or lands managed by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department 

of the Interior.

Figure 2—Area by section (Blue Ridge, Interior Low Plateau, Northern 

Ridge and Valley, Southern Ridge and Valley, and Cumberland Plateau and 

Mountains) and State in the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland.
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 1 3

The section was formed by tectonic faulting and uplift of 

resistant, crystalline bedrock that has eroded into rounded, 

broad, high mountains with little or no structural grain 

(McNab and Avers 1994). The bedrock geology consists 

mostly of Precambrian metamorphic rock formations with a 

few small bodies and windows of igneous and sedimentary 

rocks. The degree of metamorphism varies but generally 

decreases westward. Bedrock is composed primarily of 

quartzite, schist, gneiss, granite, rhyolite, basalt, and gabbro 

(McNab and Avers 1994).

Soils—Soils in the Blue Ridge Mountains section consist 

mostly of Ultisols and Inceptisols. The soils are dominantly 

well drained, strongly acidic, highly leached, and have clayenriched subsoil. On average, soil moisture is sufficient to 

meet plant needs throughout the year. Soils are generally 

moderately deep, and boulders and rock outcrops are common 

on upper slopes but are not extensive (McNab and Avers 1994). 

Soils at elevations >4,800 feet can have a frigid temperature 

regime. These are very general descriptions, as the soils in this 

section are quite variable because of the high variability in 

bedrock, landform, and climate within short distances.

Forest composition—Upland hardwoods dominate the 

forested acreage in the Blue Ridge Mountains section, 

while that of the oak-pines and natural pines vary (fig. 4). 

Overall, the age class distribution of upland hardwoods 

is heavily skewed towards the older age classes while 

the oak-pines and natural pines appear more normally 

distributed (fig. 4). Planting pine in this section appears to 

be a recent phenomenon (fig. 4). The five most abundant 

species/species-groups across the section are nested in the 

higher level “upland hardwoods” management type (fig. 5).

Mixed hardwood forests comprise the majority of the 

acreage in the Blue Ridge Mountains section. Although 

the mixed-hardwood forest type is well distributed across 

age classification, oak-dominated forests—chestnut oak/

black oak/scarlet oak (Q. prinus–Q. velutina–Q. coccinea), 

white oak/northern red oak/hickory (Q. alba–Q. rubra–

Carya spp.), and chestnut oak—are all skewed towards the 

oldest age class (>81 years). The forest type with some of 

the highest productivity (in terms of volume growth) is the 

yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)/white oak/northern 

red oak, most of which are 60 to 80 years; unlike the oakdominated forests, this type has a larger representation 

in the younger age classes. This trend is likely driven by 

the abundance of fast-growing yellow-poplar, which was 

likely the result of past harvesting (particularly on higher 

quality sites) without the presence of adequate advance oak 

reproduction prior to harvest (Loftis 1990a, 1990b).

Of particular interest in the Blue Ridge Mountains section 

are its high elevation (>5,000 feet) grassy balds and 

heath balds. Grassy balds are large meadows or treeless 

areas that are dominated by grass species and home to 

Area (million acres)

Age class

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.2

0.4

0.0

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81+

Planted pine

Natural pine

Oak-pine

Upland hardwoods

Lowland hardwoods

Area (million acres)

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.2

0.4

0.0

Mixed

upland 

hardwoods

White oak/

red oak/

hickory 

Yellowpoplar/

white oak/

northern red oak

Chestnut oak/

black oak/

scarlet oak

Chestnut oak

Species group

Figure 5—Area occupied by the five most common species and species 

groups (all falling into the upland hardwoods forest management type) in 

the Blue Ridge Mountains section of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland.

Figure 4—Age class distribution, 2010, of planted pine, natural pine, oakpine, upland hardwoods, and lowland hardwoods forest management types 

in the Blue Ridge Mountains section of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland.
4 Chapter 1 | The Forests and People of the Appalachian-Cumberland Highland

rare shade-intolerant plant species. Heath balds support 

rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum), mountain 

laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and sandmyrtle (Leiophyllum

buxifolium), among other species (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006). 

Also found at high elevations in this section are remnant 

spruce-fir (Picea rubens–Abies fraseri) forests, which cover 

about 21,200 acres in the Blue Ridge Mountains section. 

These relic forests are found at high elevations (>4,000 

feet), and the majority are aged >81 years (USDA Forest 

Service 2012). Although climate certainly drives the range 

of spruce-fir forests, widespread logging in the early 20th

century along with ownership patterns likely contributed to 

their limited extent.

Interior Low Plateau

The Interior Low Plateau section, located northwest of the 

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains section (fig. 1), is about 

evenly divided between Kentucky and Tennessee with a 

small part in northern Alabama. Its western border follows 

the Tennessee River north to the Ohio River; together the 

two rivers form its northern and western boundaries. The 

counties located on its eastern border are Mason, Fleming, 

Bath, Montgomery, Clark, Madison, Garrard, Lincoln, 

Pulaski, Russell, and Clinton Counties in Kentucky, and 

Pickett, Overton, Putnam, White, Warren, Coffee, Moore, 

and Lincoln Counties in Tennessee; the Alabama counties 

located on its southern boundary are Madison, Morgan, 

Lawrence, Lauderdale, and Limestone.

This section covers 28,135,680 acres, of which 25,377,870 

acres are owned by non-Federal entities. In absolute 

acreage, it contains the most urban area in the AppalachianCumberland highland at 1.8 million acres. However, on a 

proportional basis, the amount of non-Federal land in urban 

uses amounts to only 7 percent—the second lowest in the 

subregion. Urban areas are concentrated in and around 

two Kentucky cities—Lexington, and Louisville—and the 

Nashville Basin in Tennessee. Rural areas are composed 

of small to medium-sized farms, with larger farms located 

in the northwestern parts. The gently rolling terrain in this 

section is particularly favorable to agricultural development, 

with 13.2 million acres classified as cropland or pastureland. 

Compared to the other sections of the AppalachianCumberland highland, the Interior Low Plateau has the 

highest percentage of non-Federal land base categorized as 

agriculture (52 percent) and the lowest percentage of land 

base categorized as forest (41 percent). As a proportion 

of total non-Federal land area, the Interior Low Plateau 

section contains the highest agricultural use (on an absolute 

and proportional basis) of the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland, with 52 percent of the land classified as cropland 

and pastureland. Despite possessing about 10.3 million 

acres of non-Federal forest land, the Interior Low Plateau 

section contains the smallest proportion of non-Federal land 

classified as forests.

Landform—The Interior Low Plateau section has a diversity 

of landforms and soils. The northeastern area—which 

includes the Kentucky cities of Louisville, Frankfort, and 

Lexington—is an area of gently rolling terrain with some 

isolated hills and ridges. Elevation ranges from 660 feet 

near the Ohio River to about 980 feet near Lexington (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 2006).

The northwestern area—which includes the Kentucky 

towns of Henderson, Owensboro, and Madisonville—is 

characterized by gently sloping to steep slopes in the west 

with increasing steepness eastward. The steeper slopes have 

many bedrock escarpments and several levels of benches 

caused by alternating geologic beds of soft shale and hard 

sandstone. This area is dissected by numerous small and 

large tributaries of the Ohio River, ranging from welldefined valleys and broad floodplains of major streams to 

the narrow floodplains of smaller streams. Elevations range 

from 345 feet near the Ohio River to 950 feet on the highest 

ridges (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 2006).

The southern area includes the basin surrounding Nashville, 

TN; beyond this is the Highland rim—a plateau consisting 

of low, rolling hills, upland flats, and narrow valleys with 

elevations ranging from 330 feet along the deepest valleys 

to 1,310 feet on the crests of isolated hills—that extends 

north to Bowling Green, KY and south to Clarksville, TN. 

Steep slopes occur where the Nashville basin cuts into the 

area and along the western edge that defines the Coastal 

Plain border. The Nashville basin is characterized by deep 

dissections on its edges and interior undulating and rolling 

hills; the land surface is deeply pitted with limestone 

sinks and limestone outcrops, and elevations average 650 

feet—ranging from 450 feet in the most deeply cut stream 

channels to 1,325 feet on isolated hills (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006).

The bedrock geology consists mostly of Ordovician to late 

Mississippian sedimentary rock formations. The banding 

plains are nearly flat across most of the section with 

alternating bands of shale, sandstone, and limestone of 

varying thicknesses. Loess deposits are common in northern 

areas. Karst topography and cave formations are common in 

all but the northwestern corner.

Soils—Soils in the Interior Low Plateau section are diverse. 

In the Nashville basin and the northwestern corner, soils are 

Udalfs. In other areas, soils are a mixture of Alfisols, 
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 1 5

Inceptisols, Mollisols, and Ultisols. The Ultisols are found 

mainly in the Highland rim surrounding the Nashville basin. 

Common to all of the soils are mesic soil temperatures, udic 

soil regimes, and mixed mineralogy. Soil depth varies from 

very deep in lower slope positions to shallow on ridges or 

near bedrock outcrops. Most soils developed in residuum 

with the exception of those areas of loess deposits 

(U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 2006).

Forest composition—Like elsewhere throughout the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland, upland hardwoods 

dominate the forested acreage in the Interior Low Plateau 

section, followed, distantly, by lowland hardwoods, oakpine, natural pine, and planted pine (fig. 6). Overall, the age 

class distribution of upland hardwoods is skewed towards 

the older age classes. Lowland hardwoods, oak-pine, and 

natural pine age classes follow a normal distribution 

(fig. 6). Planting pine in this section appears to be a recent 

phenomenon.

The five most common species/species groups (fig. 7) across 

the Interior Low Plateau section are nested in the higher level 

“upland hardwoods” management type, which constitutes 

>75 percent of all the forest types. Overall, they are normally 

distributed with regard to age. In contrast, the oak-dominated 

forests are all skewed towards age classes that exceed the 

median age class.

Northern Ridge and Valley

The Northern Ridge and Valley section is located east of 

the Appalachian Plateau and west of the Piedmont and the 

Blue Ridge Mountains section (fig. 1). Most of the land 

is located along the northwestern Virginia border with a 

smaller part occurring in northeastern Tennessee. Northern 

Ridge and Valley counties located in Virginia are Frederick, 

Clarke, Warren, Shenandoah, Page, Rockingham, Highland, 

Augusta, Bath, Rockbridge, Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, 

Roanoke, Giles, Montgomery, Pulaski, Bland, Wythe, 

Tazewell, Smyth, Washington, Scott, and Russell; in 

Tennessee, they are Sullivan and Washington.

The section covers a total of 7,515,710 acres, of which 5,301,570 

are held by non-Federal entities. Forests cover the largest 

proportion of the non-Federal land base, almost 2.3 million 

acres or 53 percent. Urban areas, which account for only 9 

percent of the total non-Federal land base, are concentrated 

around Roanoke, VA, Bristol, TN, Kingsport, TN, and 

Johnson City, TN. Valley forests were cleared for agriculture 

long ago because of their fertile soils and lack of steep slopes. 

The association between more gentle terrain and agricultural 

uses can be observed by the increased agricultural uses in this 

section compared to some of the more rugged sections (such 

as the Blue Ridge Mountains). Currently, 37 percent of the nonFederal land base in the Northern Ridge and Valley section is 

classified as agricultural (cropland or pastureland).

Area (million acres)

Age class

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81+

1.6

1.8

2.0

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.2

0.4

0.0

Planted pine

Natural pine

Oak-pine

Upland hardwoods

Lowland hardwoods

Area (million acres)

Species group

White oak/

red oak/

hickory 

Mixed

upland

hardwoods

Eastern 

redcedar/

hardwood

Sugarberry

hackberry/

elm/green ash

Chestnut oak/

black oak/

scarlet oak

4

3

2

1

0

Figure 7—Area occupied by the five most common species groups (all 

falling into the upland hardwoods forest management type) in the Interior 

Low Plateau section of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland.

Figure 6—Age class distribution, 2010, of planted pine, natural pine, oakpine, upland hardwoods, and lowland hardwoods forest management types 

in the Interior Low Plateau section of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland.
6 Chapter 1 | The Forests and People of the Appalachian-Cumberland Highland

Landform—The Northern Ridge and Valley terrain is a 

nearly continuous band of parallel mountains and narrow 

valleys that trend northeast to southwest. The Great Valley 

is a significant landform in this section and contains the 

Shenandoah Valley and River. The bedrock geology is 

sedimentary and consists of alternating beds of limestone, 

dolomite, shale, and sandstone. The ridgetops are capped 

with more resistant carbonate and sandstone layers, and the 

valleys have eroded into less resistant shale or limestone (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 2006). Rock outcrops are common and the rock strata 

are heavily folded, resulting in strongly inclined to almostvertical bedrock (Smith 1994). Average elevation is 2,894 feet.

Soils—Soils in the section consist mostly of Ultisols and 

Inceptisols, with small areas of Alfisols and Spodosols. 

The dominant forest soils in the mountains are weathered 

from sandstone and shale; valley soils are weathered from 

shale, weathered from limestone, or have a limestone 

influence (Smith 1994). The mountain soils are excessively 

or somewhat excessively drained, low in natural fertility, 

and very-strongly to strongly acidic. Valley soils are well 

drained to moderately well drained, of moderate fertility, and 

medium to strongly acidic (Smith 1994). Soils are generally 

shallow and very rocky on sandstone ridges and sideslopes, 

and may be very deep in valleys and on large limestone 

formations (Smith 1994). On average, soil moisture is 

sufficient to meet plant needs throughout the year.

Forest composition—Upland hardwoods dominate the 

forested acreage in the Northern Ridge and Valley section 

followed distantly by oak-pine, natural pine, lowland 

hardwoods, and planted pine (fig. 8). Overall, the age 

distribution of upland hardwood forest management type 

is heavily skewed towards the older age classes. Excluding 

the oldest age class (>81), lowland hardwoods, oak-pine, and 

natural pine are approximately normally distributed (fig. 8). 

For oak-pine and natural pine, however, substantially more 

acreage is in the oldest age class than in any other single 

age class. The relatively small amount of planted pine in the 

≤20-year age class suggests that little recent intensive pine 

management has occurred throughout the Northern Ridge 

and Valley section (fig. 8).

The five most abundant species/species groups (by acreage) 

across the Northern Ridge and Valley section are nested 

in the higher level “upland hardwoods” management type 

(fig. 9). Of these, the first four occur on fairly dry landscape 

positions, and the last one occurs most often on protected 

landscape positions, such as coves and north slopes, where 

moisture is higher. The prevalence of dry forest types reflects 

the drier climate found in this section. For the chestnut oak/

black oak/scarlet oak, chestnut oak, and white oak/red oak/

hickory, the age distribution is heavily skewed towards the 

older age classes (>70 years). In contrast, the age distribution 

for the mixed upland hardwoods includes a large acreage in 

young stands with a relatively small acreage in older stands. 

Area (million acres)

Age class

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81+

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.2

0.4

0.0

Planted pine

Natural pine

Oak-pine

Upland hardwoods

Lowland hardwoods

Area (million acres)

Mixed

upland 

hardwoods

White oak/

red oak/

hickory 

Yellowpoplar/

white oak/

northern red oak

Chestnut oak/

black oak/

scarlet oak

Chestnut

oak

Species group

0.8

1.0

0.4

0.6

0.0

0.2

Figure 9—Area occupied by the five most common species and species 

groups (all falling into the upland hardwoods forest management type) 

in the Northern Ridge and Valley section of the U.S. AppalachianCumberland highland.

Figure 8—Age class distribution, 2010, of planted pine, natural pine, 

oak-pine, upland hardwoods, and lowland hardwoods forest management 

types in the Northern Ridge and Valley section of the U.S. AppalachianCumberland highland.
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 1 7

The age distribution of yellow-poplar/white oak/northern red 

oak is characterized by a moderate acreage in young stands 

(<20 years), small acreage in the middle of the age class (20 

to 60 years), and a large acreage in older stands (>60 years).

Of particular conservation interest in this section are the relic 

spruce-fir forests found at high elevations (>4,000 feet). This 

forest type is old (>81 years), and covers only 6,200 acres in 

the Northern Ridge and Valley section (USDA Forest Service 

2012). Although climate certainly drives the range of sprucefir forests, widespread logging in the 20th century along with 

ownership patterns likely contributed to their limited extent.

Southern Ridge and Valley

The Southern Ridge and Valley section is located southeast 

of the Cumberland Plateau and Mountains section and 

northwest of the Blue Ridge Mountains section (fig. 1). 

It borders the Northern Ridge and Valley section to the 

northeast and the State of Georgia to the southwest. Most 

of the section is located in eastern Tennessee with a small 

area (Lee County) occurring in southwestern Virginia. 

Southern Ridge and Valley counties located in Tennessee 

are Hamilton, Bradley, McMinn, Meigs, Roane, Loudon, 

Blount, Knox, Union, Jefferson, Grainger, Hamblen, Greene, 

Hawkins, Claiborne, and Hancock.

The section covers 4,028,350 acres, of which 3,530,150 

are held by non-Federal entities. Like elsewhere in the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland, forest land is the 

predominant use in the Southern Ridge and Valley section, 

but the valleys widen southward, so other land uses, 

particularly agriculture, become more common. Although 

the section has the least acreage classified as urban uses, on a 

proportional basis, it also has the highest single concentration 

of urban uses, the area in and around Knoxville, TN. 

Agricultural land is an important land use in the Southern 

Ridge and Valley section. As of 1997, 36 percent of the 

total non-Federal land base in the section was classified as 

agricultural land (specifically cropland and pastureland).

Landform—The Southern Ridge and Valley terrain is a 

nearly continuous band of parallel mountains and valleys 

that trend northeast to southwest. In contrast to the Northern 

Ridge and Valley section, this section does not have as 

many ridges and the valleys’ floors broaden and decrease in 

altitude toward the southwest. North of Knoxville, TN, the 

ridges are still numerous and the valley floors are high, at 

2,500 feet (Fenneman 1938). Clinch Mountain is a significant 

landform that runs from the northern limit of the section 

to just south of Knoxville, TN. South of Knoxville, TN the 

landscape is composed of low ridges, knobs, and stream 

valleys (Fenneman 1938). Average elevation is 2,936 

feet. The bedrock geology is sedimentary and consists of 

alternating beds of limestone, dolomite, shale, and sandstone. 

The ridgetops are capped with more resistant carbonate 

and sandstone layers, and the valleys have eroded into less 

resistant shale or limestone (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006). The rock 

strata are heavily folded, which results in strongly inclined to 

almost vertical bedrock (Smith 1994).

Soils—Soils in the section consist mostly of Ultisols and 

Inceptisols. The dominant forest soils in the mountains are 

primarily weathered from sandstone and shale; valley soils 

are weathered from shale, weathered from limestone, or have 

a limestone influence (Smith 1994). The mountain soils are 

excessively or somewhat-excessively drained, low in natural 

fertility, and very strongly to strongly acidic. Valley soils 

are well drained to moderately well drained, of moderate 

fertility, and medium to strongly acidic (Smith 1994). Soils 

are generally shallow and very rocky on sandstone ridges 

and sideslopes, and may be very deep in valleys and on large 

limestone formations (Smith 1994). On average, soil moisture 

is sufficient to meet plant needs throughout the year.

Forest composition—Upland hardwoods dominate 

the forested acreage in the Southern Ridge and Valley 

section followed by the natural pine, oak-pine, lowland 

hardwoods, and planted pine (fig. 10). Overall, the age class 

distribution of the upland hardwood management types is 

skewed towards the older age classes. For natural pines, 

the distribution is skewed towards the younger age classes; 

however, the oak-pine distribution varies (fig. 10). For 

planted pine, all acreage occurs in age classes <30 years, 

emphasizing that planting is a relatively new phenomenon in 

the Southern Ridge and Valley section (fig. 10).

The five most abundant species/species groups across the 

section are nested in the higher level “upland hardwoods” 

management type (fig. 11). White oak/red oak/hickory, 

mixed upland hardwoods, chestnut oak/black oak/scarlet 

oak, and chestnut oak occur on fairly dry landscape 

positions. In contrast, yellow-poplar/white oak/northern red 

oak occurs most often on protected and moister landscape 

positions, such as coves and north slopes. For the oakdominated forest types, the age distribution is skewed 

towards the older age classes (>50 years). This is especially 

true for the chestnut oak/black oak/scarlet oak, most of 

which are >70 years. Mixed upland hardwoods are evenly 

distributed among age classes. Chestnut oak is slightly 

skewed towards the older age classes (>50 years). Planted 

and natural pines—such as loblolly (Pinus taeda), shortleaf 

(Pinus echinata), and Virginia (Pinus virginiana)—are 

more common in this section than in the Northern Ridge 

and Valley section.
8 Chapter 1 | The Forests and People of the Appalachian-Cumberland Highland

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains

The Cumberland Plateau is located northwest of the Northern 

and Southern Ridge and Valley sections and east of the 

Interior Low Plateau section (fig. 1). Most of this section 

is found in eastern Kentucky and eastern Tennessee, with 

the exception of a small area (Jackson County) in northern 

Alabama. Within the section, the Cumberland Mountains 

are located along the State borders of southeastern Kentucky, 

southwestern Virginia, and northeastern Tennessee. 

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains counties located in 

Virginia are Buchanan, Dickenson, Wise, and Norton; 

in eastern Tennessee they are Campbell, Scott, Fentress, 

Anderson, Morgan, Cumberland, Rhea, Bledsoe, Van Buren, 

Sequatchie, Grundy, Franklin, and Marion; and in Kentucky 

they are Lewis, Greenup, Boyd, Carter, Rowan, Elliott, 

Lawrence, Menifee, Morgan, Johnson, Martin, Powell, Wolfe, 

Magoffin, Floyd, Pike, Estill, Lee, Breathitt, Knott, Letcher, 

Perry, Owsley, Jackson, Rockcastle, Knox, Laurel, Harlan, 

Clay, Leslie, Bell, Whitley, McCreary, and Wayne.

This section covers a total of 12,839,230 acres—of which 

11,315,970 acres are held by non-Federal entities—and 

contains both the largest proportion of non-Federal land in 

forests and the smallest (on a proportional basis) amount of 

area classified as urban. Flat land is not common, limiting 

agricultural uses; only 19 percent of the non-Federal land base 

is classified as agricultural land (cropland or pastureland).

Landform—The topography of the Cumberland Plateau 

varies according to location: rolling hills in the northern 

section, flat plateaus in the southern section, and highly 

dissected terrain covering most of the interior (Jones 2005). 

In the interior southeast and southwest parts, steep ridges 

and narrow valleys predominate (Jones 2005). The western 

border of the Cumberland Plateau, known as the Pottsville 

Escarpment, is highly dissected. A strip along the central 

part of the section’s eastern edge, known as the Cumberland 

Mountains, has the section’s highest elevations—4,145 feet 

at Black Mountain—dropping gradually to about 650 feet 

on the flood plain along the Ohio River (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006). 

Average elevation for the section is 2,316 feet.

The plateau was formed by a broad uplift of strata, which 

created a level-bedded plateau. Over time, fluvial erosion 

and mass wasting have created a moderately dissected 

area of dendritic drainages (McNab and Avers 1994). The 

Cumberland Mountains were formed when the Cumberland 

overthrust block was pushed westward as a result of thinskinned tectonics (McNab and Avers 1994). The thrust plate 

is delineated by prominent strike ridges—Pine Mountain 

to the northwest and Cumberland-Stone Mountain to the 

southeast (Smalley 1984). The bedrock of the Cumberland 

Plateau and Mountains section consists of sandstones, 

conglomerates, coals, siltstones, and shales of Pennsylvanian 

age. Resistant sandstone caps the ridges, and faster erosion 

Area (million acres)

Age class

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81+

0.3

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.0

Planted pine

Natural pine

Oak-pine

Upland hardwoods

Lowland hardwoods

Area (million acres)

Species group

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.0

Mixed

upland 

hardwoods

White oak/

red oak/

hickory 

Yellow-poplar/

white oak/

northern red oak

Chestnut oak/

black oak/

scarlet oak

Chestnut

oak

Figure 11—Area occupied by the five most common species and species 

groups (all falling into the upland hardwoods forest management type) 

in the Southern Ridge and Valley section of the U.S. AppalachianCumberland highland.

Figure 10—Age class distribution, 2010, of planted pine, natural pine, 

oak-pine, upland hardwoods, and lowland hardwoods forest management 

types in the Southern Ridge and Valley section of the U.S. AppalachianCumberland highland.
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 1 9

of lower strata results in rock houses, arches, and windows, 

particularly in northern areas. Limestones, shales, chert, 

and sandstones of Mississippian age may be exposed in 

entrenched streambeds, especially along the Pottsville 

Escarpment (Jones 2005).

Soils—Soils in the Cumberland Plateau and Mountains 

section consist mostly of Ultisols and Inceptisols. The soils 

found on the ridges and slopes are typically loamy to clayey, 

excessively drained, low in fertility, highly acidic, and often 

very rocky (Jones 2006). Soils containing higher organic 

matter and moisture content are less frequent, and may be 

found on lower slopes, terraces, and floodplains (Jones 2006). 

On average, soil moisture is sufficient to meet plant needs 

throughout the year.

Forest composition—Overall, the age classes for upland 

hardwoods represent a skewed distribution towards the 

older age classes. For natural pine, oak-pine, and lowland 

hardwoods, the age class distribution varies (fig. 12). 

Overall, the age classes of upland hardwoods represent 

an approximately skewed normal distribution, with more 

acreage in the older age classes than would occur if the age 

classes were normally distributed. For natural pine, oak-pine, 

and lowland hardwoods, the age classes represent a normal 

distribution with slightly more acreage occurring in the middle 

age classes than in the younger or older age classes (fig. 12). 

In the planted pines, substantially more acreage is in the <20 

age class than in the 21- to 50-year age classes, suggesting an 

increase in planting activity in the recent years (fig. 12).

The five most abundant species/species groups (by acreage) 

across the section are nested in the higher level “upland 

hardwoods” management type (fig. 13). The two oakdominated types cover most of the acreage in this section; 

they—along with chestnut oak—are skewed towards the 

older age classes (>60 years). Mixed upland hardwoods are 

evenly distributed over all age classes except the >70 year 

class, where their numbers are lower.

The group associated with the highest levels of forest 

productivity is yellow-poplar/white oak/northern red oak. 

These forests are somewhat normally distributed across the 

age classes. The Cumberland Mountains have been cited as the 

heart of the historical mixed mesophytic association, which 

is known for its high diversity of plant species (Braun 1950). 

Braun (1950) identified three characteristics that described 

the mixed mesophytic forest: (1) three distinct strata of 

vegetation composed of understory, midstory, and overstory 

species; (2) shared overstory dominance by a multitude of 

hardwood species that may include yellow-poplar, basswood 

(Tilia americana), buckeye (Aesculus spp.), sugar maple 

(Acer saccharum), American chestnut (Castanea dentata), 

northern red oak, white oak, beech (Fagus grandifolia), and 

hemlock (Tsuga spp.); and (3) a preference for moist and well 

drained soils. The current forests of the Cumberland Plateau 

Planted pine

Natural pine

Oak-pine

Upland hardwoods

Lowland hardwoods

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81+

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Area (million acres)

Age class

Area (million acres)

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

0.5

1.0

0.0

Mixed

upland 

hardwoods

White oak/

red oak/

hickory 

Yellow-poplar/

white oak/

northern

red oak

Chestnut oak/

black oak/

scarlet oak

Chestnut

oak

Species group

Figure 13—Area occupied by the five most common species and species 

groups (all falling into the upland hardwoods forest management type) 

across the Cumberland Plateau and Mountains section of the U.S. 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland. 

Figure 12—Age class distribution, 2010, of planted pine, natural pine, oakpine, upland hardwoods, and lowland hardwoods forest management types 

in the Cumberland Plateau and Mountains section of the U.S. AppalachianCumberland highland.
10 Chapter 1 | The Forests and People of the Appalachian-Cumberland Highland

and Mountains section are drier because of soil erosion 

resulting from cycles of harvesting and regeneration (Wharton 

and Barbour 1973). Nevertheless, plant diversity is still 

comparatively high in many areas, particularly in coves and on 

north-facing and east-facing aspects.

History of Disturbances and Recovery

The Appalachian-Cumberland highland has a history of 

human inhabitation that dates back to the Paleo-Indian period 

approximately 12,000 years ago (Yarnell 1998). Since that 

time, it has been continuously influenced by the various 

human populations that inhabited it, with the structure and 

composition of its forests shaped, in part, by patterns of land 

use. Until modern industrialization, activities associated with 

subsistence living were the primary uses of the AppalachianCumberland forests, providing fuel, building materials, and 

food. Below, we summarize the uses and disturbance events 

that, in part, shaped the attributes (such as structure and 

composition) of present-day Appalachian-Cumberland forests.

The disturbance history of the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland is complex. A broad-scale view suggests that 

frequent small-scale gap dynamics (Lorimer 1980) 

coupled with debris landslides and wind and ice storms of 

intermediate scale and frequency were (and still are) the 

predominant natural disturbance agents acting on its forests 

(White and others 2011). Although lightning-caused wildfires 

did (and still do) occur, they were likely rare and primarily 

affected very specific parts of the landscape, such as lowelevation, dry ridge tops (Lafon and Grissino-Mayer 2007).

Evidence suggests purposeful burning conducted by Native 

Americans was prevalent across the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland before European settlement; this served as an 

additional disturbance event controlling species composition 

and structural attributes of forests (Delcourt and Delcourt 

1997, 1998). The extent of burning, as well as the direct and 

indirect effects of burning on vegetation, varied spatially and 

temporally across the topographically complex landscape 

(Flatley and others 2011, Guyette and others 2006, Yarnell 

1998). In general, specifics about these fire regimes (such as 

extent, severity, behavior, and frequency) as they affect major 

forest types have not been fully quantified (Fesenmyer and 

Christensen 2010). However, the general consensus among 

scientists is that periodic, low-intensity fire was used by Native 

Americans (Abrams 1992, Brose and others 2001); also that 

the purpose and need for burning was related to subsistence 

living, with burning (along with tree girdling) used to clear 

land for agricultural purposes, attract game, and increase 

certain plant foods (Yarnell 1998). Burning was likely more 

frequent and more widespread before war and disease brought 

large reductions in Native populations (Guyette and others 

2002, McEwan and others 2011).

Although the timing of widespread settlement varied across 

the Appalachian-Cumberland highland (Moore 2012, Yarnell 

1998), settlement was always accompanied by increased use 

of forests. Some of the earlier activities that influenced forest 

structure and composition were similar to earlier activities 

conducted by Native Americans: widespread and open 

grazing (by hogs and other livestock), firewood collecting, 

harvesting of timber for subsistence living, burning 

(purposeful fires associated with settlement activities, such 

as land clearing and improving grazing habitat), and land 

clearing via tree girdling for agricultural uses (Spetich and 

others 2011, Yarnell 1998).

During the late 19th century and into the early 20th century, 

parts of the Appalachian-Cumberland highland began to 

experience the effects of modern industrialization. Although 

farming and subsistence living were the primary uses of 

forests in some areas (such as the Blue Ridge Mountains 

section), in other areas—such as eastern Kentucky, 

eastern Tennessee, and southwestern Virginia—forests 

began to be impacted by industrialization and subsequent 

land abandonment. As railroads were built, coal mining, 

widespread exploitive logging, and mining for other 

resources began to be the dominant forces shaping forests.

Although widespread exploitive logging was a prominent 

disturbance that shaped forests, another activity that has had 

a major impact—especially in the Cumberland Plateau and 

Mountains section and particularly in the northern part of the 

section—was coal mining. Hundreds of thousands of acres 

have been impacted by this activity. Coal has been extracted 

on a large scale since the early 1900s. Surface and contour 

mining remove the vegetation, soil, and rock (also known 

as overburden) that lie over the coal seam; the more recent 

practice of mountain top removal is becoming common. Coal 

mining affects the forest cover in three ways: (1) the forests 

are removed, along with the overburden, to get to the coal; 

(2) the overburden is often moved to a nearby valley, where 

it impacts existing vegetation and hydrology; and (3) the 

original forested area that was mined is often reclaimed to 

wildlife habitat, usually by planting grasses or forbs rather 

than regenerating back to forest cover.

So much forest land was impacted by disturbances that by 

1908 an estimated 86 percent of the acreage in the Southern 

Appalachian Mountains (an area composed of northern 

Georgia, northern Alabama, eastern Tennessee, western 

North Carolina, eastern Kentucky, and southwestern 

Virginia) was classified as recently harvested or in young 

regrowth stages of development (Yarnell 1998). Also 

common during this period of intensive forest use were 

wildfires associated with the extraction of timber and flood 

events that resulted in widespread erosion on landscapes 

lacking vegetation (Yarnell 1998).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 1 11

These disturbances shaped the structure and composition 

of the Appalachian-Cumberland forests. Another 

disturbance, however, that substantially affected forests 

was the loss of the American chestnut during the early 

part of the 20th century. The chestnut blight fungus 

(Cryphonectria parasitica) was introduced around 1901; 

by 1930, most of the American chestnut had disappeared. 

This keystone species—which fed, housed, and supported 

people and animals and was a dominant species in the 

canopy—is estimated to have occupied as much as 25 

percent of the hardwood canopy cover in the forests of the 

Eastern United States (USDA Forest Service, Southern 

Region 2013). Over time, oaks—including chestnut oak, 

northern red oak, scarlet oak, and black oak—replaced the 

dominant position once held by the American chestnut.

Following the early years of land degradation, the intense 

cutting at the turn of the 20th century generally resulted 

in successful regeneration for most places. But in areas of 

less intensive cutting, high grading became the common 

practice. These partial harvests reduced the vigor of the 

forest over time, resulting in inadequate regeneration and the 

release of the inferior trees that were not worth harvesting. 

This multitude of interacting disturbances that essentially 

occurred within a period of decades shaped the present-day 

Appalachian-Cumberland forests. They are predominately 

even-aged hardwoods, more specifically mixed hardwoods, 

of which oak species are a prominent component. Forests 

went from periods where their use was primarily driven by 

subsistence living to periods of widespread exploitation of 

their vast resources to the current period of multiple uses 

including timber management, nontimber forest products, 

recreation, watershed management, and wildlife habitat. 

Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 2 13

CLIMATE

Blue Ridge Mountains

The average annual precipitation in the Blue Ridge 

Mountains section ranges from 1105 to 1928 mm, generally 

increasing with elevation. Locations in the southern part 

of the section receive up to about 2200 mm, one of the 

highest levels in the Eastern United States. Maximum 

precipitation occurs in midwinter and midsummer, and 

minimum precipitation occurs in early autumn. Snow and 

ice are common forms of winter precipitation, particularly 

at high elevations. The average annual temperature ranges 

from 11 °C to 15 °C, increasing to the south. Potential 

evapotranspiration averages 1954 mm and ranges from 1743 

to 2127 mm. The growing season averages from 135 to 235 

days (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 2006). Aspect significantly affects 

the type and vigor of the plant communities. Southern 

and western facing slopes are warmer and drier than 

northern and eastern facing slopes and slopes shaded by 

higher mountains (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 2006).

Interior Low Plateau

Average annual precipitation ranges from 1040 to 1600 

mm, with the northeastern area receiving the least 

amount of annual rainfall and the Highland rim receiving 

the most. Maximum precipitation occurs in midwinter 

and early spring, and minimum precipitation occurs in 

early autumn. Rainfall mostly occurs as high-intensity, 

convective thunderstorms. Snow and ice are common forms 

of winter precipitation, but are variable in frequency and 

intensity. Snowfall is common in northern areas and fairly 

uncommon in the Nashville basin. The average annual 

temperature ranges from 11 °C to 16 °C. The growing 

season averages 210 days and ranges from 190 to 230 

days (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 2006).

Northern Ridge and Valley

The average annual precipitation in the Northern Ridge 

and Valley section ranges from 963 to 1210 mm, increasing 

to the southwest into Tennessee. The section receives, on 

average, less precipitation than its neighbors, attributable 

to a rain shadow produced by its northeast and southwest 

trending ridges. Maximum precipitation occurs in midwinter 

and midsummer, and minimum precipitation occurs in 

early autumn. Most of the rainfall occurs as high-intensity, 

convective thunderstorms. Snow and ice are common forms 

of winter precipitation. The average annual temperature 

ranges from 9 °C to 14 °C, increasing to the south. Potential 

evapotranspiration averages 1854 mm, and ranges from 1643 

to 2046 mm, highest in the summer months and increasing 

to the southwest. The growing season averages from 150 to 

210 days (McNab and Avers 1994)—longest in the south and 

shortest at high elevations and at the northern edge.

Southern Ridge and Valley

The average annual precipitation in the Southern Ridge and 

Valley section ranges from 1134 to 1424 mm, increasing 

to the southwest. Aspect significantly affects the type and 

vigor of the plant communities. Southern and western facing 

slopes are warmer and drier than northern and eastern 

facing slopes and slopes shaded by higher mountains (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 2006). Maximum precipitation occurs in midwinter 

and midsummer, and minimum precipitation occurs in 

early autumn. Most of the rainfall occurs as high-intensity, 

convective thunderstorms. Snow may occur in the winter, 

especially at higher elevations. The average annual 

temperature ranges from 13 °C to 15 °C, increasing to the 

south. Potential evapotranspiration averages 2071 mm, and 

ranges from 1931 to 2144 mm. It is highest in the summer 

months and increases to the southwest. The growing season 

averages from 170 to 210 days (McNab and Avers 1994)—

longest in the southern part of the section and shortest at high 

elevations and at the northern edge.

Chapter 2.

Changes in the Physical Environment
14 Chapter 2 | Changes in the Physical Environment

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains

The average annual precipitation in the Cumberland Plateau 

and Mountains section ranges from 1116 to 1501 mm, 

increasing with elevation. It can be as much as 1905 mm in 

the Cumberland Mountains (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006). Almost 

half of the annual precipitation falls during the growing 

season, with rainfall occurring as high-intensity, convective 

thunderstorms during summer (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006). 

Snow occurs in the winter, particularly at higher elevations. 

The average annual temperature ranges from 12 °C to 15 °C. 

Potential evapotranspiration averages 1983 mm, and ranges 

from 1780 to 2175 mm. The growing season averages 200 

days and can range from 170 to 225 days.

CLIMATE CHANGE FORECASTS

Climate was projected under two emissions storylines 

developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (2007b). The A1B storyline is characterized by low 

population growth, high energy use, and economic growth. 

The B2 storyline is characterized by moderate population 

growth, energy use, and economic growth. These storylines 

represent two levels of global carbon dioxide emissions 

by 2100 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

2007a, Solomon and others 2007): 60 Gt of carbon-dioxide 

equivalents in the A1B storyline, resulting in an atmospheric 

concentration of about 700 parts per million; and 65 Gt of 

carbon-dioxide equivalents in the B2 storyline, resulting in 

an atmospheric concentration of about 600 parts per million. 

They were combined with four general circulation models to 

form four Cornerstone Futures—(A) MIROC3.2+A1B, 

(B) CSIROMK3.5+A1B, (C) CSIROMK2+B2, and 

(D) HadCM3+B2—each of which compared forecasts of the 

next 50 years (2010 to 2060) in decadal increments with 10-

year historical (1997 to 2006) averages (Wear and others 2013).

Cornerstone A

Characterized by high population growth and high energy 

use/economic growth (MIROC3.2+A1B), Cornerstone A 

forecasts the Appalachian-Cumberland highland to be dry 

and hot when compared to historical trends (table 1). Surface 

temperature is expected to increase slowly and steadily, 

albeit with some variability (fig. 14). By 2060, average annual 

temperature is predicted to be an average of 3.4 °C higher 

than the historical average (table 1), with the largest increases 

occurring in the Northern Ridge and Valley (28 percent), 

Interior Low Plateau (27 percent), and Cumberland Plateau 

and Mountains (26 percent) sections. Although predicted 

trends in precipitation are more variable than temperature 

(fig. 14), all five Appalachian-Cumberland sections are 

expected to experience significant reductions in average 

annual precipitation with some of the largest reductions 

occurring in the Interior Low Plateau and Northern Ridge 

and Valley sections.

Cornerstone B

Characterized by high population growth and high energyuse/economic-growth (CSIROM‐K3.5+A1B), Cornerstone 

B forecasts the Appalachian-Cumberland highland to be 

relatively wet and warm when compared to historical trends 

(table 1). Surface temperature is expected to increase slowly 

and steadily, albeit with some variability (fig. 15). By 2060, 

average annual temperature is predicted to be an average 

of 1.6 °C higher than the historical average (table 1), with 

the largest increases occurring in the Northern Ridge and 

Valley (16 percent), Interior Low Plateau (13 percent), and 

the Cumberland Plateau and Mountains (13 percent) sections. 

Although predicted trends in precipitation are more variable 

than temperature (fig. 15), all five sections are forecasted to 

either approximate or be wetter than the historical average 

with the Blue Ridge Mountains section experiencing some 

of the largest increases. All sections, with the exception of 

the Blue Ridge Mountains, are still expected to experience 

periods of decreased precipitation; however, these decreases 

are expected to be smaller than under Cornerstone A.

Cornerstone C

Characterized by low population/income-growth and 

energy use (CSIROMK2+B2), Cornerstone C forecasts the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland to be moderate and 

warm when compared to historical trends (table 1). Surface 

temperature is expected to increase slowly and steadily, 

albeit with some variability (fig. 16). By 2060, average annual 

temperature is predicted to be an average of 2.5 °C higher 

than the historical average (table 1), with the largest increases 

occurring in the Northern Ridge and Valley (15 percent), 

Table 1—Historical (1997 to 2006) trends in average 

annual precipitation and temperature by section in the 

U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland

Section

Average 

annual 

precipitation 

(mm)

Average 

annual 

temperature 

(°C)

Blue Ridge Mountains 1409 12.6

Northern Ridge and Valley 1095 11.8

Southern Ridge and Valley 1285 14.1

Cumberland Plateau 

and Mountains 1263 13.2

Interior Low Plateau 1291 14.0
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 2 15

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Temperature (0C)

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

17.0

17.5

18.0

Precipitation (mm)

900

800

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Year Year

Blue Ridge Mountains

Northern Ridge and Valley

Southern Ridge and Valley

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains 

Interior Low Plateau 

(A) Average annual temperature (B) Average annual precipitation

CORNERSTONE A

Figure 14—Climate changes, 2010 to 2060, under Cornerstone A for the five sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland—(A) average annual 

temperature and (B) average annual precipitation; each of the four primary Cornerstone Futures represents a general circulation model (MIROC3.2, 

CSIROMK3.5, CSIROMK2, or HadCM3) paired with one of two emission scenarios (A1B representing low-population/high-economic growth, high energy 

use; B2 representing moderate growth and use). Cornerstone A is MIROC3.2+A1B (McNulty and others 2013).

Blue Ridge Mountains

Northern Ridge and Valley

Southern Ridge and Valley

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains 

Interior Low Plateau 

Temperature (0C)

Precipitation (mm)

Year Year

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

17.0

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

(A) Average annual temperature (B) Average annual precipitation

CORNERSTONE B

Figure 15—Climate changes, 2010 to 2060, under Cornerstone B for the five sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland—(A) average annual 

temperature and (B) average annual precipitation; each of the four primary Cornerstone Futures represents a general circulation model (MIROC3.2, 

CSIROMK3.5, CSIROMK2, or HadCM3) paired with one of two emission scenarios (A1B representing low-population/high-economic growth, high energy 

use; B2 representing moderate growth and use). Cornerstone B is CSIROMK3.5+A1B (McNulty and others 2013).
16 Chapter 2 | Changes in the Physical Environment

Blue Ridge Mountains

Northern Ridge and Valley

Southern Ridge and Valley

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains 

Interior Low Plateau 

Temperature (0C)

Precipitation (mm)

Year Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

15.5

15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

17.0

(A) Average annual temperature (B) Average annual precipitation

CORNERSTONE C

Figure 16—Climate changes, 2010 to 2060, under Cornerstone C for the five sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland—(A) average annual 

temperature and (B) average annual precipitation; each of the four primary Cornerstone Futures represents a general circulation model (MIROC3.2, 

CSIROMK3.5, CSIROMK2, or HadCM3) paired with one of two emission scenarios (A1B representing low-population/high-economic growth, high energy 

use; B2 representing moderate growth and use). Cornerstone C is CSIROMK2+B2 (McNulty and others 2013).

Blue Ridge Mountains

Northern Ridge and Valley

Southern Ridge and Valley

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains 

Interior Low Plateau 

Temperature (0C)

Precipitation (mm)

Year Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

11.5

12.0

12.5

13.0

13.5

14.0

14.5

15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

17.0

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

11.5

(A) Average annual temperature (B) Average annual precipitation

CORNERSTONE D

Figure 17—Climate changes, 2010 to 2060, under Cornerstone D for the five sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland—(A) average annual 

temperature and (B) average annual precipitation; each of the four primary Cornerstone Futures represents a general circulation model (MIROC3.2, 

CSIROMK3.5, CSIROMK2, or HadCM3) paired with one of two emission scenarios (A1B representing low-population/high-economic growth, high energy 

use; B2 representing moderate growth and use). Cornerstone D is HadCM3+B2 (McNulty and others 2013).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 2 17

Interior Low Plateau (12 percent), and Cumberland Plateau 

and Mountains (12 percent) sections. Although the predicted 

trends in precipitation are more variable than temperature 

(fig. 16), the Appalachian-Cumberland highland is expected 

to be slightly wetter than the historical average. Although 

annual precipitation is likely to fall below the historical 

average occasionally, no single decadal average is forecasted 

to be <10 percent of historical precipitation levels.

Cornerstone D

Characterized by low population/income-growth and energy 

use (HadCM3+B2), Cornerstone D forecasts the AppalachianCumberland highland to be moderate and warm when 

compared to historical trends (table 1). Surface temperature 

is expected to increase slowly and steadily, albeit with some 

variability (fig. 17). By 2060, average annual temperature 

is predicted to be an average of 1.8 °C higher than the 

historical average (table 1), with large increases occurring 

in the Northern Ridge and Valley (16 percent), Interior Low 

Plateau (13 percent), Cumberland Plateau and Mountains (13 

percent), Blue Ridge Mountains (13 percent), and Southern 

Ridge and Valley (12 percent). Although the predicted trends 

in precipitation are more variable than temperature (fig. 17), 

the Appalachian-Cumberland highland is expected to be 

slightly wetter than the historical average. Although annual 

precipitation is likely to fall below the 10-year historical 

average occasionally, no single decadal average is forecasted 

to be <10 percent of historical precipitation levels.

Summary

A gradual change in climate is forecasted to occur under all 

Cornerstone Futures across the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland over the next 50 years compared to the 10-year 

historical average (1997 to 2006). The forecasted increase 

in average decadal temperature ranges from 1.6 °C 

(Cornerstone B) to 3.4 °C (Cornerstone A). The Interior Low 

Plateau section will likely continue to be the warmest of the 

five Appalachian-Cumberland sections and the Northern 

Ridge and Valley section will likely remain the coolest.

Unlike temperature, where a steady increase is forecasted 

regardless of Cornerstone Future, predictions for 

precipitation are less consistent. In general, Cornerstone A 

forecasts the largest change; although high levels of decadal 

variability are likely, the average decadal precipitation is 

forecasted to be 8 percent less than the historical average. 

In comparison, average decadal precipitation under 

Cornerstones B, C, and D is forecasted to be 2 to 3 percent 

greater than the historical average.

For a broader discussion of climate in the South, see 

McNulty and others (2013).

FIRE

Wildfire reports compiled for a State-by-State assessment of 

wildfire risks in the South (Buckley and others 2006) revealed 

that the Cumberland Plateau and Mountains section of the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland—which includes the 

eastern parts of Tennessee and Kentucky and several counties 

in western Virginia—were a primary area of wildfire activity 

from 1997 to 2002 (fig. 18). Some wildfire activity was 

reported in the Blue Ridge Mountains, Northern Ridge and 

Valley, and Southern Ridge and Valley sections; only minor 

levels were reported in the Interior Low Plateau section.

Figure 19 shows the total acres burned by season for the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland. Wildfire activity is 

lowest in the summer (June through August) and highest 

in the autumn (September through November), with spring 

(March through May) providing a secondary peak. The 

winter wildfire season was largely tied to either an extended 

autumn wildfire season or an early spring wildfire season.

The use of prescribed burning as a means to meet 

management objectives is increasing on public lands 

throughout southern forests. In the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland, prescribed burning is used to reduce fuel loads 

and subsequent wildfire hazard, improve forest health, 

manage wildlife habitat (including habitat for threatened 

and endangered species), and meet other ecosystem 

restoration goals. Limitations on prescribed burning as a 

forest management tool include safety and liability risks 

(Achtemeier and others 1998, Wade and Brenner 1995) and 

smoke management issues (Macie and Hermansen 2002).

0 - 500

500.01 - 1,000

1,000.01 - 5,000

5,000.01 - 10,000

10,000.01 - 50,000

50,000.01 - 100,000

Area burned (acres)

Figure 18—Area burned by wildfires, 1997 to 2002, in the U.S. 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland; data compiled for a State-by-State 

assessment of wildfire risks in the South (Buckley and others 2006).
18 Chapter 2 | Changes in the Physical Environment

General Outlook for Wildfire Risk

Under the future conditions forecasted by the four 

Cornerstone Futures (A through D), fire would continue to 

have a substantial role in the ecology and management of 

southern forests throughout the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland. Wildfire will likely continue to threaten life and 

property, but would be exacerbated by continued population 

growth, associated expansion of the wildland-urban 

interface, and climate change. As is true for the rest of the 

Central Hardwood region of the United States (Guyette 

and Spetich 2003), humans are the main factor influencing 

the frequency of wildfire ignitions in the AppalachianCumberland highland.

As population increases in and around forested landscapes 

(especially in the wildland-urban interface) and as recreation 

pressure increases, wildfire ignitions generally increase 

(Romero-Calcerrada and others 2008). Given this association 

between population and wildfire starts, the forecasted 

increase in population and urbanization-driven changes in 

land use (chapter 3) along with increased recreation pressure 

(chapter 5) on forests would mean that fire suppression, 

active management to reduce wildfire risk and hazard 

(hazardous fuels reduction projects), and public outreach and 

education (establishing safe zones around private property in 

the wildland-urban interface) will continue to be immediate 

concerns for land managers.

As population growth and urbanization increases the issues, 

surrounding wildfire risk and the use of prescribed burning 

in and around populated areas to achieve a multitude of 

forest management objectives—including hazardous fuels 

reduction—should be expected to increase.

0 - 50 50.01 - 100 100.01 - 500 500.01 - 1,000 1,000.01 - 5,000 5,000.01 - 10,000 10,000.01 - 15,000

Area burned (acres)

(A) December, January, February (B) March, April, May

(C) June, July, August (D) September, October, November

Figure 19—Area burned by wildfire, 1997 to 2002, in the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland during (A) winter months of December through February, 

(B) spring months of March through May, (C) summer months of June through August, and (D) autumn months of September through November; data 

compiled for a State-by-State assessment of wildfire risks in the South (Buckley and others 2006).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 2 19

Stanturf and Goodrick (2013) simulated wildfire hazard 

for 2010 and developed projections through 2060 under 

Cornerstone Futures A through D, using a potential 

drought index (PDI). For a complete explanation of PDI, 

we refer readers to the fire chapter of the Southern Forest 

Futures technical report (Stanturf and Goodrick 2013). 

Readers of this report on the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland should be aware that PDI accentuates drought 

conditions and thus highlights areas of potential increases 

in wildfire potential. Positive values of the PDI indicate 

drought conditions, which serve as a surrogate for potential 

increases in wildfire potential.

Comparing 2010 PDI values under the four Cornerstone 

Futures (fig. 20) with data on actual acres burned (fig. 

18) shows that low annual PDI values do not necessarily 

correspond to low wildfire potential; for example, the 

western Appalachian Mountains experienced a high level of 

acres burned despite having the lowest annual PDI values.

By 2060, despite all Cornerstones predicting drier 

conditions overall, annual PDI in the AppalachianCumberland highland is forecasted to continue at near zero 

(fig. 21). Cornerstone A depicts the most severe conditions, 

but little change in PDI is forecasted under Cornerstones 

B, C, and D. The relatively low PDI values suggest that the 

potential for wildfire would remain low. However, as noted 

above, the relationship between annual PDI and acres 

burned by wildfire in the Cumberland Plateau section is 

not strong.

Wetter Drier

(A) Cornerstone A (B) Cornerstone B

(C) Cornerstone C (D) Cornerstone D

Figure 20—Annual fire potential in the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland for current conditions, 2010, as simulated by Cornerstone Futures A 

through D; each of the Cornerstone Futures represents a general circulation model—MIROC3.2, CSIROMK3.5, CSIROMK2, or HadCM3—paired with 

one of two emission scenarios—A1B representing low-population/high-economic growth, high energy use; B2 representing moderate growth and use: (A) 

MIROC3.2+A1B, (B) CSIROMK3.5+A1B, (C) CSIROMK2+B2, and (D) HadCM3+B2 (McNulty and others 2013).
20 Chapter 2 | Changes in the Physical Environment

Seasonality of Wildfire in a Changing Climate

Examining forecasted PDI by season suggests only slight 

changes over the next 50 years. Cornerstone A forecasts the 

largest increase in dryness, as indicated by an increase in 

PDI. By 2060, this cornerstone predicts substantial drying 

across the Appalachian-Cumberland highland, with the 

largest increase in PDI occurring in the summer months 

(fig. 22). By 2060, substantial drying is expected across the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland, with the largest increase 

in PDI occurring in the summer months. This increase in 

PDI during the summer months could result in prolonged 

spring and earlier autumn wildfire seasons.

Cornerstone B forecasts more subtle changes in PDI over 

the next 50 years, the result being longer drying periods in 

winter and summer months (fig. 23). This could translate 

into a more active winter wildfire season, an earlier onset 

of the spring wildfire season, or both. Given the majority of 

prescribed burning in the Appalachian-Cumberland highland 

is conducted during the dormant season, wintertime drying 

could result in escaped prescribed fires, thereby reducing 

the usefulness of the practice. The change in the PDI during 

the autumn wildfire season, which is predicted to be slightly 

lower than under Cornerstone A, could shorten the autumn 

wildfire season.

(A) Cornerstone A (B) Cornerstone B

(C) Cornerstone C (D) Cornerstone D

Wetter Drier

Figure 21—Predicted annual fire potential in the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland, 2060, under Cornerstone Futures A through D; each of the 

Cornerstone Futures represents a general circulation model—MIROC3.2, CSIROMK3.5, CSIROMK2, or HadCM3—paired with one of two emission 

scenarios—A1B representing low-population/high-economic growth, high energy use; B2 representing moderate growth and use: (A) MIROC3.2+A1B, (B) 

CSIROMK3.5+A1B, (C) CSIROMK2+B2, and (D) HadCM3+B2 (McNulty and others 2013).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 2 21

Across the South, Cornerstones C and D predictions are only 

slightly different from Cornerstone B in terms of seasonality 

of wildfire. The gradual transition from winter rainy season 

to summer dry season in Cornerstone B is largely erased, 

which brings the 2060 conditions into much closer alignment 

with Cornerstone C and D.

Outlook for Prescribed Burning

Increasing urbanization and fragmentation are expected to 

be of concern for prescribed burning and smoke management 

across the Southern United States. These concerns apply to 

the Appalachian-Cumberland highland as well. An extended 

wildfire season would magnify the importance of effective 

fuels management. However the same drying that could 

extend the wildfire season could also limit the ability to use 

prescribed fire. Forecasted increases in dryness could shorten 

burn windows, increase the potential for escaped fires, and/or 

have more severe fire effects than intended.

The challenges surrounding prescribed burning—threat 

of escape, smoke management, and air quality—will 

likely continue. These issues are expected to increase as 

populations and transportation systems continue to grow and 

spread out across the Appalachian-Cumberland highland. 

Some States— Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, and 

Virginia—have passed laws to address prescribed fire 

liability related to escaped prescribed burns.

Wetter Drier

Cornerstone A

(A) January

Cornerstone A

(B) April

Cornerstone A

(C) July

Cornerstone A

(D) October

Figure 22—Seasonal fire potential, 2060, predicted under Cornerstone A for the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland during (A) January, (B) April, (C) 

July, and (D) October; each of the four primary Cornerstone Futures represents a general circulation model (MIROC3.2, CSIROMK3.5, CSIROMK2, or 

HadCM3) paired with one of two emission scenarios (A1B representing low-population/high-economic growth, high energy use; B2 representing moderate 

growth and use). Cornerstone A is MIROC3.2+A1B (McNulty and others 2013).
22 Chapter 2 | Changes in the Physical Environment

Summary

Over the long-term and factoring in the effects of climate 

change, prescribed burning programs will likely grow, 

at the same time that urbanization and fragmentation 

of the forests are increasing. The complexity and cost 

of prescribed burning are expected to increase as these 

factors become more pronounced. Restrictions on the use 

of prescribed burning to manage fuels would exacerbate 

potential climate change effects, particularly in the 

western Appalachian Mountains where wildfire potential 

is expected to increase. Fuel buildups combined with more 

intense wildfires under a changed climate potentially would 

have drastic consequences for fire-dependent or fireadapted forest communities.

Wildfire activity in the southern Appalachian Mountains 

is lowest in the summer and highest in the autumn, with 

spring providing a secondary peak. Winter wildfire activity 

is more than in the summer, but is largely tied to either an 

extended autumn wildfire season or an early spring season. 

Cornerstone A represents the highest degree of change 

over the next 50 years, with much more drying expected, 

particularly in the summer and autumn months. Cornerstone 

B is closer to current conditions. Under this cornerstone, 

the western Appalachian Mountains would experience drier 

summers, resulting in a prolonged spring and earlier autumn 

wildfire season.

For a broader discussion of wildfire in the South, see Stanturf 

and Goodrick (2013).

Cornerstone B

(A) January

Cornerstone B

(B) April

Cornerstone B

(C) July

Cornerstone B

(D) October

Wetter Drier

Figure 23—Seasonal fire potential, 2060, predicted under Cornerstone B for the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland during (A) January, (B) April, (C) 

July, and (D) October; each of the four primary Cornerstone Futures represents a general circulation model (MIROC3.2, CSIROMK3.5, CSIROMK2, or 

HadCM3) paired with one of two emission scenarios (A1B representing low-population/high-economic growth, high energy use; B2 representing moderate 

growth and use). Cornerstone B is CSIROMK3.5+A1B (McNulty and others 2013).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 3 23

POPULATION, DEMOGRAPHY, 

AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

From 1990 to 2008, the South grew considerably faster (32.5 

percent) than the U.S. average of 22.2 percent (table 2), with 

all demographic groups experiencing an increase in growth. 

The South is one of the two regions that outpaced the 

national rate for all race/ethnic groups.

All Appalachian-Cumberland sections experienced increases 

in population, income per capita, and gross regional product 

from 1970 to 2000. Although the sections had similar 

average income per capita, they varied substantially in 

population and gross regional product, with the Interior Low 

Plateau section highest in both metrics. In 2000 income per 

capita (in 2004 dollars) in the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland averaged $25,388 compared to $26,892 for the 

other four subregions. Differences in gross regional product 

were more distinct (likely reflecting inherent differences in 

the size of the various subregions, with the AppalachianCumberland being one of the smallest); the AppalachianCumberland averaged $66,325 million compared to $157,317 

million for the other subregions.

Blue Ridge Mountains

The population, income per capita, and gross regional product 

increased in the Blue Ridge Mountains section from 1970 

to 2000 (fig. 24). By 2000, the population was 1.3 million, 

with the largest increase reported in the counties closest to 

Asheville, NC. Income per capita (in 2004 dollars) increased 

about $5,000 for every 10 years from 1980 to 2000, reaching 

$24,561.25 by 2000. Gross regional product increased from 

1970 to 2000, approximating $31.3 billion by 2000.

Chapter 3.

The Human Footprint

Table 2—U.S. population in 2008 by race/ethnicity and region with increase (or decrease) since 1990 

North South Rocky Mountains Pacific Coast United States

Race/ethnicity

Million 

persons

Percent 

increase 

(decrease)

Million 

persons

Percent 

increase 

(decrease)

Million 

persons

Percent 

increase 

(decrease)

Million 

persons

Percent 

increase 

(decrease)

Million 

persons

Percent 

increase 

(decrease)

Caucasian 92.2 (0.2) 63.5 14.0 19.5 25.3 24.3 (1.4) 199.5 5.9

African American 14.8 18.7 18.9 35.4 0.9 69.4 2.6 8.9 37.2 26.8

American Indian 0.4 23.2 0.7 36.4 0.8 38.3 0.4 13.7 2.3 29.6

Asian/Pacific Islander 4.7 116.4 2.5 170.6 0.7 171.1 5.8 59.0 13.7 95.4

Two or morea 1.5 – 1.3 – 0.4 – 1.3 – 4.5 –

Hispanicb 10.8 94.6 16.0 143.2 5.5 157.8 14.7 80.4 46.9 109.8

 Total 124.4 10.1 102.8 32.5 27.8 46.0 49.1 25.2 304.1 22.2

aPercent change for two or more races is missing because U.S. citizens could not select more than one race until 2000.bHispanics of any race are included in this category.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990, 2008a).
24 Chapter 3 | The Human Footprint

1970

1980

1990

2000 

(A) Population (B) Average income per capita

(C) Gross regional product

Population (million people)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Per capita income (U.S. dollars)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Gross regional product (Billion U.S. dollars)

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

Interior

Low

Plateau

Blue

Ridge

Mountains

Southern

Ridge and

Valley

Cumberland

Plateau and

Mountains

Northern

Ridge and

Valley

Interior

Low

Plateau

Blue

Ridge

Mountains

Southern

Ridge and

Valley

Cumberland

Plateau and

Mountains

Northern

Ridge and

Valley

Interior

Low

Plateau

Blue

Ridge

Mountains

Southern

Ridge and

Valley

Cumberland

Plateau and

Mountains

Northern

Ridge and

Valley

Figure 24—From 1970 to 2000, demographic changes by section of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland: (A) population, (B) average income per 

capita, and (C) gross regional product.
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 3 25

Interior Low Plateau

The population, income per capita, and gross regional 

product increased in the Interior Low Plateau section from 

1970 to 2000 (fig. 24). By 2000, the population was 5.7 

million. Income per capita (in 2004 dollars) increased about 

$5,000 for every 10 years from 1980 to 2000, reaching 

$28,883 by 2000. From 1970 to 2000, the gross regional 

product increased from 75.3 billion to $192.8 billion.

Northern Ridge and Valley

The population, income per capita, and gross regional 

product increased in the Northern Ridge and Valley section 

from 1970 to 2000 (fig. 24). By 2000, the population was 1.3 

million, with the largest increase reported in the counties 

closest to metropolitan Washington, Roanoke, VA, and 

Knoxville, TN. Income per capita (in 2004 dollars) increased 

about $4,000 for every 10 years, reaching $25,590 by 2000. 

Gross regional product increased steadily from 1970 to 2000, 

approximating $39.7 billion by 2000.

Southern Ridge and Valley

The population, income per capita, and gross regional 

product increased in the Southern Ridge and Valley section 

from 1970 to 2000 (fig. 24). By 2000, the population 

was 1.4 million, with the largest increase reported in the 

counties closest to the Tennessee cities of Johnson City, 

Bristol, Kingsport, and Knoxville. Income per capita (in 

2004 dollars) steadily increased as well, by about $5,000 for 

every 10 years, reaching $27,639 by 2000. Gross regional 

product increased from 1970 to 2000, approximating $43.7 

billion by 2000.

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains

By 2000, the population of the section was 1.3 million (fig. 

24), with the largest increase reported in Laurel County, 

KY; conversely, Harlan County, KY, experienced one of the 

largest decreases in population over 30 years in the entire 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland. Income per capita 

(in 2004 dollars) increased by $6,800 from 1970 to 1980 

(fig. 24) but only by $1,500 from 1980 to 1990; by 2000 it 

reached $20,265. Gross regional product fluctuated from 

1970 to 2000 (fig. 24), with minor increases observed from 

1970 to 1980 followed by a slight increase from 1980 to 

1990. By 2000, gross regional product approximated 

$24.1 billion.

THE SHIFTING SOCIETAL LANDSCAPE

With moderate growth, the total population of the United 

States is expected to increase by >47 percent, nearly 60 

percent for the South (table 3). Of the States with land in the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland, only Virginia (62.0 

percent) is projected to grow faster than the southwide 

average. The remaining States—including Alabama (44.6 

percent), Georgia (52.9 percent), Kentucky (35.3 percent), 

North Carolina (55.3 percent), and Tennessee (51.9 percent)—

are expected to grow slower than the southwide average. 

These percentages reflect State totals and have not been 

scaled to the Appalachian-Cumberland portion of each State.

Figure 25 shows the population density for the Appalachian 

Cumberland highland. Population densities are generally 

highest near current metropolitan areas such as Huntsville 

(Alabama); Nashville and Knoxville (Tennessee); Bowling 

Green, Louisville, and Lexington (Kentucky); Cincinnati 

suburbs (northern Kentucky); Blacksburg and Roanoke 

(Virginia); and Henderson County, Caldwell County, Burke 

County, and the city of Asheville (North Carolina).

From 1990 to 2008 (fig. 26), population density growth 

decreased in some western Virginia and eastern Kentucky 

counties, while the highest increases in population density 

growth occurred in northern Alabama and Georgia, the 

Nashville and Knoxville area in Tennessee, the LexingtonLouisville corridor in Kentucky, greater Cincinnati, several 

counties in western North Carolina, and the Harrisonburg 

area in Virginia.

As shown in table 2, about 63 percent of the southern 

population is Caucasian, about 18 percent is African 

American, and 16 percent is Hispanic. No other race/ethnic 

group represents >3 percent of the population: <1 percent for 

American Indians, ~2 percent for Asian/ Pacific Islanders, 

and about 1 percent for two or more races. From 1990 to 

2008, the lowest percentage of increase was for non-Hispanic 

Caucasians, although the rate of growth for this group was 

more than double the national rate. The Asian/Pacific Islander 

population had the highest growth rate (170.6 percent), 

followed by the Hispanic population (143.2 percent) with 

growth being especially high in North Carolina and Georgia.

Figure 27 indicates that the Hispanic population grew in all 

counties of the Appalachian-Cumberland highlands, with the 

exception of Hancock County in Tennessee, and Buchanan 

and Bath Counties in Virginia, between 1990 and 2008.
26 Chapter 3 | The Human Footprint

Table 3—Estimated U.S. population (millions of people) for 2008 and projections to 2060 by region and 

Southern State for three levels of population growth 

Population 

(2008)

Projected population 

(2060)

Increasea

(percent)

State(s) Low growth Moderate growth High growth

------------------------million persons------------------------

All U.S. States 304.4 397.3 447.3 505.3 47.1

All Pacific Coast States 49.1 67.8 76.3 86.2 55.6

All Rocky Mountain States 27.8 44.1 49.7 56.1 79.0

All Northern States 124.4 139.9 157.6 178.0 26.7

All Southern States 102.8 145.4 163.7 184.9 59.2

Alabama 4.7 6.0 6.7 7.6 44.6

Arkansas 2.9 3.9 4.4 4.9 52.6

Florida 18.3 30.5 34.3 38.8 87.4

Georgia 9.7 13.2 14.8 16.7 52.9

Kentucky 4.3 5.1 5.8 6.5 35.3

Louisiana 4.4 5.3 5.9 6.7 34.5

Mississippi 2.9 3.8 4.3 4.8 44.6

North Carolina 9.2 12.7 14.3 16.2 55.3

Oklahoma 3.6 4.4 5.0 5.7 37.5

South Carolina 4.5 6.3 7.0 8.0 57.3

Tennessee 6.2 8.4 9.4 10.7 51.9

Texas 24.3 34.7 39.1 44.1 60.6

Virginia 7.8 11.2 12.6 14.2 62.0

aUnder the assumption that growth will be moderate.

Sources: Cordell and others (2013); U.S. Census Bureau (2008a).

Population density by county, 2008

(persons per square mile)

0 - 16.9

16.91 - 44.5

44.51 - 112.3

112.31 - 71201.9

Figure 25—Population density by county, 2008, in the U.S. AppalachianCumberland highland (Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2008b).

-1,226.4 - 0.00

0.1 - 3.2

3.21 - 16.7

> 16.7

Population density growth, 1990-2008

(persons per square mile)

Figure 26—Change in population density by county, 1990 to 2008, in the 

U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland (Source: U.S. Census Bureau 

2008b).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 3 27

Regarding non-Hispanic Caucasian population growth, 

numerous counties in the Cumberland Plateau and Mountains 

section of eastern Kentucky and western Virginia saw either 

decreases or no growth, as did a handful of counties in 

the Northern Ridge and Valley section of Virginia and the 

westernmost parts of the Interior Low Plateau section.

Expected patterns of growth (persons per square mile) are 

depicted in Figure 28. This parameter is described in three 

ways: under a low growth population projection, a moderate 

growth population projection, and a high growth population 

projection from 2008 to 2060. Under the low growth 

projection, the highest growth is expected in counties and in 

areas surrounding current urban centers such as Louisville 

and Lexington in Kentucky; and Nashville, Knoxville, and 

several northern counties in Tennessee. Counties with lower 

density growth would be scattered around the AppalachianCumberland landscapes, although some would be concentrated 

in the Northern and Southern Ridge and Valley sections, the 

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains section, and the western 

edges of the Interior Low Plateau section.

Under the moderate growth population projection 

(fig. 28), growth areas would increase most in the counties 

surrounding Nashville and Knoxville in Tennessee; 

Louisville, Lexington, and Cincinnati suburbs in Kentucky; 

and the Asheville area in North Carolina. Again, counties 

with lower growth in population density would be scattered 

around the Appalachian-Cumberland highland, although 

some would be concentrated in the Northern Ridge and 

Valley section, the Cumberland Plateau and Mountains, and 

the western edges of the Interior Low Plateau section.

Under the high growth projection (fig. 28), the special 

distribution of population density growth would be similar 

to the moderate growth projection. With high growth, fewer 

counties would have low expected growth; these would be 

scattered in the Northern Ridge and Valley and the Interior 

Low Plateau sections.

Summary

With regard to racial composition, population distribution, 

and population growth, the South has been and continues to 

be a very dynamic region of the country. It is characterized 

by rapid population growth, dramatic changes in 

demographics, and shifting uses of land and water resources. 

In the last two decades the South’s population grew at a 

considerably faster rate (over 30 percent) than the U.S. 

average (just above 20 percent). Over the next 50 years or so, 

projected growth for the South is expected to be nearly 60 

percent, approaching 105 million.

For a broader discussion of demographics in the South, see 

Cordell and others (2013).

Hispanic 

population growth (percent)

-50.2 - 0.0

0.1 - 200.0

200.1 - 376.9

> 376.9

Non-Hispanic Caucasian 

population growth (percent)

-52.3 - 0.0

0.1 - 3.8

3.81 - 18.5

> 18.5

(A) Hispanics (B) Non-Hispanic Caucasian

Figure 27—Change in population by county, 1990 to 2008, in the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland for (A) Hispanics and (B) non-Hispanic 

Caucasians (Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2008b).
28 Chapter 3 | The Human Footprint

For the purposes of this publication, land in the Appalachian-Cumberland highland is classified into four 

categories that are based on definitions used in by the National Resources Inventory:

Forests—A land cover/use category that is at least 10 percent stocked by single stemmed forest trees—of any 

size—that will be at least 13 feet tall at maturity. When viewed vertically, canopy cover is ≥25 percent. Also 

included are areas bearing evidence of natural regeneration of tree cover (cutover forest or abandoned farmland) 

and not currently developed for nonforest use. For classification as forest land, the area must be at least 1 acre and 

100 feet wide.

Cropland—A land cover/use category that includes areas used for the production of crops that are adapted 

for harvest. Two subcategories of cropland are recognized: cultivated and noncultivated. Cultivated cropland 

is defined as land in row crops or close-grown crops and other types of cultivated cropland, such as hayland 

or pastureland that is in a rotation with row or close-grown crops. Examples of noncultivated cropland are 

permanent hayland and horticultural cropland.

Pastureland—A land cover/use category of land managed primarily for the production of introduced or native 

forage plants for livestock grazing. Pastureland may consist of a single species in a pure stand, a grass mixture, 

or a grass-legume mixture. Management usually consists of cultural treatments—fertilization, weed control, 

reseeding, or renovation and control of grazing. (For the National Resources Inventory, this category includes 

land that has a vegetative cover of grasses, legumes, forbs, or all three—regardless of whether or not it is being 

grazed by livestock.)

Urban—A land cover/use category consisting of residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional land; 

construction sites; public administrative sites; railroad yards; cemeteries; airports; golf courses; sanitary landfills; 

sewage treatment plants; water control structures and spillways; other land used for the purposes described above; 

small parks (<10 acres) in urban and built-up areas; and highways, railroads, and other transportation facilities 

if they are surrounded by urban areas. Also included are tracts of <10 acres that do not meet the above definition 

but are completely surrounded by urban and built-up land. Two size categories are recognized in the National 

Resources Inventory: areas 0.25 to 10 acres, and areas >10 acres.

< 1.81

1.81 - 32.7

32.71 - 190.7

> 190.7

Population density change 

(persons per square mile)

(A) Low growth projection (B) Moderate growth projection (C) High growth projection

Figure 28—Change in population density by county, 2008 to 2060, in the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland under a (A) low growth projection, 

(B) moderate growth projection, and (C) high growth projection (Sources: Cordell and others 2011, U.S. Census Bureau 2008b).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 3 29

Land Uses

Forest land is the dominant land use across all five sections 

in the Appalachian-Cumberland highland. Land-use patterns 

and the degree of development across the AppalachianCumberland highland are, in part, likely limited by the 

topography of the landscape, the availability and access 

to water resources, and the patterns of public and private 

ownership (Turner and others 1996, Verburg and others 

1999). Overall the Appalachian-Cumberland highland has 

the highest growth rate (on a proportional basis) of urban 

land use compared to the rest of the South. Fastest growing 

areas are central-northern Kentucky (an area bordered 

by Lexington, Louisville, and Cincinnati) and around the 

Tennessee cities of Nashville and Knoxville.

According to the 1997 National Resources Inventory (fig. 29), 

the predominant uses of non-Federal land in the sections of 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland are:

lBlue Ridge Mountains—4,312,160 acres in forests (67 

percent), 1,041,040 acres in pastureland (16 percent), 

386,650 acres in cropland (6 percent), and 682,210 acres 

urban (11 percent)

lInterior Low Plateau—10,309,890 acres in forests (41 

percent), 7,158,050 acres in pastureland (28 percent), 

6,087,660 acres in cropland (24 percent), and 1,822,280 

acres urban (7 percent)

lNorthern Ridge and Valley—2,283,010 acres in forests 

(53 percent), 1,404,920 acres in pastureland (27 percent), 

601,830 acres in cropland (11 percent), and 471,810 acres 

urban (9 percent)

lSouthern Ridge and Valley—1,836,390 acres in forests 

(52 percent), 916,080 acres in pastureland (26 percent), 

321,050 acres in cropland (9 percent), and 456,630 acres 

urban (13 percent)

lCumberland Plateau and Mountains—8,637,990 acres 

in forests (76 percent), 1,610,990 acres in pastureland (14 

percent), 597,460 acres in cropland (5 percent), and 469,550 

acres urban (4 percent)

Forecasts (2010 to 2060)

Urban—Under Cornerstones A and B (high population and 

economic growth), the forecasted area of non-Federal urban 

land is expected to increase from the 1997 base of about 3.9 

million acres to >10.6 million acres by 2060, an increase of 

about 172 percent (table 4). The highest percentage of growth 

is expected to occur in the Interior Low Plateau section (198 

percent) followed by the Cumberland Plateau and Mountains 

section (186 percent).

Under Cornerstones C and D (moderate population and 

low economic growth), the highest percentage of growth in 

urban land use (table 5) is expected to occur in the Interior 

Low Plateau section (about 131 percent), followed by the 

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains section (113 percent).

Forest land—In contrast to urban land uses, forest use 

forecasts for the South depend on timber prices in addition 

to the drivers of urbanization. Under Cornerstone B (high 

urbanization and decreasing timber prices), the AppalachianCumberland highland is projected to lose about 3.7 million 

acres of forest by 2060, about 13 percent from the 1997 

base (table 6). The largest percentage loss of forest land use 

would be in the Blue Ridge Mountains section (18 percent), 

followed closely by the Southern Ridge and Valley section 

(17.8 percent). As shown in figure 30, the largest proportional 

losses of forest land would occur in Boone County in 

Kentucky; Buncombe County, Clay County, and Graham 

County in North Carolina; Knox County and Unicoi County 

in Tennessee; and Towns County and Rabun County in 

Georgia.

Under Cornerstone C (low urbanization and increasing timber 

prices), the Appalachian-Cumberland highland is projected 

to lose about 1.4 million acres, about 5.1 percent of the 1997 

base (table 7). The largest percentage loss is projected to be 

in the Southern Ridge and Valley section, (about 10 percent), 

followed closely by the Blue Ridge Mountains section (about 

9.9 percent). As shown in figure 30, the largest loss of forest 

land use for Cornerstone C is in the Cincinnati metropolitan 

area to Louisville in Kentucky; Nashville and Knoxville 

in Tennessee; Buncombe County, Henderson County, Clay 

County, Graham County, and Swain County in western North 

Carolina; and all of the Appalachian-Cumberland counties in 

northern Georgia—the exception being Gilmer County which 

would have a lower percentage change.

Cropland—In contrast to forest area, which is more heavily 

influenced by urbanization patterns, cropland change is 

more heavily influenced by the timber prices. Across the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland, little change (-3 percent 

to +3 percent) is forecasted to occur from the 1997 base 

acreage under Cornerstone D, which has an expectation 

of moderate urbanization gains and decreasing timber 

prices. Exceptions would occur in around the urban areas 

of Nashville and Knoxville in Tennessee, and areas around 

Louisville and Lexington in Kentucky. In these areas, 

cropland uses could decrease 3 to 25 percent by 2060.

Under Cornerstone B, which again has an expectation of 

decreasing timber prices, but large urbanization gains, 

the decrease is forecasted to be in the 15 percent range. 

Assuming the high timber prices under Cornerstone A 

(large urbanization gains) and Cornerstone C (moderate 

urbanization gains), the decrease in cropland use is 

forecasted to be more widespread. Much of the AppalachianCumberland highland is forecasted to lose 3 to 10 percent 

by 2060, with more substantial decreases (10 to 25 percent) 
30 Chapter 3 | The Human Footprint

(A) Urban (B) Forest

(C) Cropland (D) Pasture

(E) Range Concentration (percent)

0 - .20

.21 - .40

.41 - .60

.61 - .80

.81 - 1.0

Figure 29—Concentrations of five land uses, 1997, in the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland—(A) urban, (B) non-Federal forest land, (C) cropland, 

(D) pastureland, and (E) rangeland (Source: National Resources Inventory).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 3 31

Table 4—Forecasted area of urban land in the five sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland, 1997 to 

2060, based on an expectation of high population and income growth

Area in urban use Increase (1997 to 2060)

Section 1997 2010 2020 2040 2060 Area Percent

--------------------------------------million acres--------------------------------------

Blue Ridge Mountains 0.68 0.85 1.02 1.35 1.81 1.13 164.9

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains 0.47 0.60 0.73 0.98 1.34 0.87 186.0

Interior Low Plateau 1.82 2.45 2.99 4.08 5.44 3.62 197.7

Northern Ridge and Valley 0.47 0.54 0.61 0.73 0.91 0.43 92.6

Southern Ridge and Valley 0.46 0.57 0.74 0.88 1.13 0.67 147.4

 Total for all sections 3.90 5.01 6.03 8.03 10.63 6.73 172.4

Source: Huggett and others (2013).

Table 5—Forecasted area of urban land in the five sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland, 1997 to 

2060, based on an expectation of low population and income growth

Area in urban use Increase (1997 to 2060)

Section 1997 2010 2020 2040 2060 Area Percent

--------------------------------------million acres--------------------------------------

Blue Ridge Mountains 0.68 0.90 1.03 1.19 1.42 0.73 107.60

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains 0.47 0.64 0.73 0.84 1.00 0.53 113.30

Interior Low Plateau 0.82 2.56 2.98 3.54 4.20 2.39 131.30

Northern Ridge and Valley 0.47 0.57 0.61 0.66 0.73 0.25 54.00

Southern Ridge and Valley 0.46 0.59 0.67 0.78 0.91 0.45 98.70

 Total for all sections 3.90 5.25 6.04 7.02 8.27 4.36 111.80

Source: Huggett and others (2013).
32 Chapter 3 | The Human Footprint

Table 7—Forecasted area of non-Federal forest land in the five sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland, 

1997 to 2060, based on an expectation of low population and income growth coupled with increasing timber prices

Area in forest use Decrease (1997 to 2060)

Section 1997 2010 2020 2040 2060 Area Percent

--------------------------------------million acres--------------------------------------

Blue Ridge Mountains 4.31 4.18 4.11 4.02 3.88 0.43 9.90

Cumberland Plateau and Mountain 8.64 8.54 8.49 8.45 8.35 0.29 3.30

Interior Low Plateau 10.31 10.09 10.00 9.95 9.87 0.44 4.20

Northern Ridge and Valley 2.82 2.78 2.77 2.76 2.74 80.63 2.90

Southern Ridge and Valley 1.84 1.78 1.75 1.70 1.65 0.18 10.00

 Total for all sections 27.92 27.38 27.12 26.88 26.50 1.42 5.10

Non-Federal land includes land held by private organizations, individuals, families, local governments, Indian reservations, and U.S.

States but does not include U.S. military bases or lands managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Source: Huggett and others (2013)

Table 6—Forecasted area of non-Federal forest land in the five sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland, 

1997 to 2060, based an expectation of high population and income growth coupled with decreasing timber prices

Area in forest use Decrease (1997 to 2060)

Section 1997 2010 2020 2040 2060 Area Percent

--------------------------------------million acres--------------------------------------

Blue Ridge Mountains 4.31 4.19 4.08 3.85 3.54 0.78 18.00

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains 8.64 8.53 8.42 8.21 7.94 0.70 8.10

Interior Low Plateau 10.31 10.01 9.75 9.25 8.66 1.65 16.00

Northern Ridge and Valley 2.82 2.78 2.75 2.68 2.59 0.23 8.30

Southern Ridge and Valley 1.84 1.78 1.73 1.63 1.51 0.33 17.80

 Total for all sections 27.92 27.30 26.73 25.62 24.23 3.69 13.20

Non-Federal land includes land held by private organizations, individuals, families, local governments, Indian reservations, and U.S. States but does not 

include U.S. military bases or lands managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Source: Huggett and others (2013).

(A) Large urbanization gains 

 and decreasing timber prices 

(B) Moderate urbanization gains 

 and increasing timber prices

< -.25

-.25 to -.10

-.10 to -.03

-.03 to .03

.03 to .10

.10 to .25

> .25

Forest land use 

change (percent)

Figure 30—Predicted percentage of land remaining in forest use by 2060 (from the 1997 baseline) in the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland under assumptions 

of (A) large urbanization gains and decreasing timber prices, and (B) of moderate urbanization gains and increasing timber prices (Source: Wear and others 2013).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 3 33

forecasted for areas near Nashville in Tennessee and the 

Lexington and Louisville areas in Kentucky.

Pastureland—Cornerstone B forecasts the highest loss of 

pastureland—about 15 percent of the 1997 base acreage. 

Pasture losses for all the Cornerstone Futures would be 

concentrated in broad zones, one stretching from northern 

Georgia to northern Kentucky and including a large area in 

Tennessee.

Summary

Over the 50-year horizon, dramatic changes in land uses 

are predicted in the Appalachian-Cumberland highland, 

regardless of the Cornerstone Future applied. Urban land 

use is expected to increase from about 4.3 million acres 

under Cornerstones C and D, to about 6.7 million acres 

under Cornerstones A and B. Loss of forest, cropland, 

and pastureland is expected in all Cornerstone Futures. 

About 3.7 million acres of forest land use is projected under 

Cornerstone A, and 1.4 million acres under Cornerstone C.

These forecasts are in line with predictions for the other 

subregions in the South—all are expected to lose some 

forest acreage under all Cornerstone Futures, with nearly 

all of the area expected to be converted to urban uses. The 

forecasts indicate that strong future timber markets could 

ameliorate forest losses somewhat, but only at the expense 

of cropland uses.

For a broader discussion of land use in the South, see Wear 

(2013).

Forest Ownership

Of its 35.5 million forested acres in the AppalachianCumberland highland, roughly 29.3 million are owned by 

non-Federal entities. Consistent with overall land ownership 

patterns in the Eastern United States, the vast majority 

of Appalachian-Cumberland forest land is privately held, 

with ownership varying from as low as 60 percent in 

the Northern Ridge and Valley section to as high as 91 

percent in the Interior Low Plateau section. State and local 

government ownership represents the lowest percentage of 

land ownership. Federal ownership (including large Federal 

holdings, such as the land owned by the Tennessee Valley 

Authority along water concourses) varies from as low as 6 

percent in the Interior Low Plateau section to as high as 37 

percent in the Northern Ridge and Valley section.

Blue Ridge Mountains—Based on the 2010 projections, 

as shown in figure 31, 35.1 percent of forest land in the Blue 

Ridge Mountains is under Federal management. Significant 

Federal forests include land in Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park and the Nantahala, Pisgah, Cherokee, and 

Chattahoochee National Forests. Sixty three percent of forest 

land is privately owned, and the remainder (2.3 percent) is 

held by State and local governments (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006).

Interior Low Plateau—As shown in figure 31, only 6.4 

percent of forest land in the Interior Low Plateau section 

is under Federal management. Federal holdings include 

Land Between the Lakes, Mammoth Cave National Park, 

Fort Knox, and Fort Campbell. The remaining forests in 

the Interior Low Plateau section are privately owned (91.0 

percent), with some small holdings (2.5 percent) in State 

parks and other public lands (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 2006).

Northern Ridge and Valley—As shown in figure 31, 36.7 

percent of the forest land in the Northern Ridge and Valley 

section is under Federal management. Federal holdings 

include land in Shenandoah National Park, the George 

Washington National Forest, and Jefferson National Forest. 

About 3.6 percent of forest land is under State and local 

government management, and the remainder (59.9 percent) 

is privately owned (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 2006).

Southern Ridge and Valley—As shown in figure 31, 11.2 

percent of forest land in the Southern Ridge and Valley 

section is under Federal management. Federal holdings 

include the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and 

the Cherokee National Forest. Approximately 4.3 percent 

of the forest is held by State and local municipalities, and 

the remainder (84.5 percent) is privately owned (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation 

Service 2006).

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains—As shown 

in figure 31, about 9.1 percent of forest land in the 

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains section is under 

Federal management, about 85.6 percent is privately owned, 

and the remaining 5.3 percent is held by State and local 

governments (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 2006). The only national 

forest in the Cumberland Plateau and Mountains section 

is the Daniel Boone in eastern Kentucky. Although the 

proclamation boundary of the Daniel Boone encompasses 

2.1 million acres, only about 708,000 acres are in Federal 

management (USDA Forest Service, Southern Region, 

Daniel Boone National Forest 2013). Also within the 

proclamation boundary are State and private lands in a 

dissected landscape of ownerships. The Big South Fork 

National River and Recreation Area is another Federally 

owned area that covers 125,000 acres in southern Kentucky 

and northern Tennessee.
34 Chapter 3 | The Human Footprint

Forest Ownership Dynamics

In broad terms, forest ownership falls into two categories, 

private and public ownership. For the South as a whole, 

ownership of forest area is largely in private ownership, with 

86 percent being in some form of private ownership and 5 

million private owners holding 200 million acres.

Private forest ownership may be divided into corporate 

and family categories. On average in the South, families 

and individuals own two-thirds of the total private forest 

acreage, or about 134 million acres, the remaining third 

(or 66 million acres) held by corporations, conservation 

organizations, partnerships, and tribes. Corporate ownership 

includes the forest products industry, real estate investment 

trusts, timber investment management organizations, and 

other corporations. The largest ownership transition in 

the last century occurred from 1998 to 2008, when the 

forest products industry divested about three-fourths of its 

holdings. The largest gain in ownership was realized by 

timber investment management organizations and real estate 

investment trusts.

Exact numbers of acreage transfer in the AppalachianCumberland highland have not been determined, but a 

review of data and maps developed by Butler and Wear 

(2013) revealed movement of acreage from the forest 

products industry to timber investment management 

organizations or real estate investment trusts. As shown 

in table 8, total corporate acre ownership has fallen in all 

six States from 1998 to 2008. As forest products industry 

ownership has decreased in all States, the largest gain in the 

corporate ownership type has been in timber investment 

management organizations, with five of the AppalachianCumberland States increasing from zero acres in 1998 

to several hundred thousand acres in 2008. During that 

period, two States—Alabama and Georgia—experienced 

an increase in real estate investment trust acreage, and 

the remaining four States experienced a decrease. Three 

States—Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia—reported no 

acres in real estate investment trust holdings in 2008.

A review of maps for the entire subregion (fig. 32) shows that 

the forest product industry ownership is minimal, limited 

to small concentrations in a few counties of the Interior 

Low Plateau and Cumberland Plateau and Mountains 

sections of Alabama and the Northern Ridge and Valley 

and Blue Ridge Mountains sections of Virginia. For timber 

investment management organizations, the concentration in 

the Appalachian-Cumberland highland is more widespread 

(fig. 32)—with low concentrations in the Interior Low 

Plateau section in Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee; the 

Federal

State and local government

Private

11.2%

3.6% 36.7% 2.3% 35.1%

62.7%

85.6% 91.0%

59.9% 84.5%

4.3% (A) (B) (C)

5.3%

9.1%

2.5%

6.4%

(D) (E)

Figure 31—Forest ownership patterns, 2010 projections, in the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland, by section: (A) Blue Ridge Mountains, (B) Northern 

Ridge and Valley, (C) Southern Ridge and Valley, (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains, and (E) Interior Low Plateau.
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 3 35

Table 8—Corporate forest ownership groups by State, 1998 and 2008, for States with land in the U.S. AppalachianCumberland highland

Total corporate

Forest products 

industry

Timber investment 

management 

organizations

Real estate 

investment trusts Other corporate

State 1998 2008 1998 2008 1998 2008 1998 2008 1998 2008

-----------------------------------------------------------thousand acres-----------------------------------------------------------

Alabama 4,360 4,160 3,240 1,264 772 2,115 348 555 0 227

Georgia 4,348 3,889 2,478 518 0 827 1,707 2,272 163 272

Kentucky 440 334 220 0 0 333 8 0 212 1

North Carolina 1,589 1,343 1,581 560 0 749 17 9 0 25

Tennessee 1,109 625 1,053 0 0 614 8 0 48 10

Virginia 931 787 687 163 0 521 24 0 220 103

 Total 12,777 11,138 9,259 2,505 772 5,159 2112 2,836 643 638

Sources: Lanworth Inc. Unpublished report. On file with: David Wear, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Carolina State University, 

P.O. Box 8008, Raleigh NC, 27695; Butler and Wear (2013).

(A) Forest products industry

Forest Products Industry

Land Ownership, 2008

NONE

LOW

(B) Timber investment management organizations 

Timber Investment 

Management Organizations

Land Ownership, 2008

NONE

LOW

MID

Figure 32—U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland concentration of forest land, 2008, owned by (A) the forest products industry, and (B) timber investment 

management organizations (Source: Lanworth, Inc.) 
36 Chapter 3 | The Human Footprint

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains section of Kentucky, 

Tennessee, and Virginia; the Northern Ridge and Valley 

section of Virginia; and the Blue Ridge Mountains section of 

Tennessee and North Carolina. Mid-level concentrations are 

located in Wayne and Claiborne Counties in Tennessee.

Family forest owners are a more diverse group than 

corporate owners, both in the amount of acreage they own 

and their motivations for management and ownership. Butler 

and Wear (2013) defined family owners to include families, 

individuals, trusts, estates, family partnerships, and other 

unincorporated groupings of individuals who own forests. 

Nearly 60 percent of family forest owners hold ≤9 acres; at 

the same time, about 60 percent of family forest acreage is 

in holdings of ≥100. Few family forest owners have a written 

management plan for their forest holdings. Although a larger 

number of owners received management advice, less than 

half of all family forest land is owned by an individual or 

family who has sought advice.

Family forest owners cite a variety of reasons for keeping 

their holdings, including legacy, aesthetics, and land 

investments. The future of family forests depends on 

personal, familial, social, and market forces that will unfold 

as land transfers from one owner to the next. Although 

many family forest owners want to keep their land intact 

for future generations, they are not certain they will be 

able to do so. Losses in forest acreage in conjunction with 

anticipated ownership turnover could only lead to an ongoing 

parcelization and fragmentation of private forests.

The Southern United States contains about 32 million acres 

of publically owned forests. This represents about 14 percent 

of the total forest land area. Large holdings of public forest 

in the Appalachian-Cumberland section include the William 

B. Bankhead National Forest in Alabama; the Chattahoochee 

National Forest in Georgia; the Daniel Boone National Forest 

and Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area in 

Kentucky and Tennessee; the Nantahala National Forest, 

Pisgah National Forest and Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park in North Carolina; the Cherokee National Forest and 

the Great Smoky Mountains National Park in Tennessee; 

and the George Washington National Forest, Jefferson 

National Forest, and parts of the Shenandoah National Park 

in Virginia. Other large forest holdings in the section include 

land managed by two U.S. Department of the Interior units—

Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs—as 

well as numerous State and local parks and forests.

Outlook for Forest Ownership

For corporate owners, the traditional model of large land 

ownership by forest products industry shifted dramatically 

from 1998 to 2008 as industry lands shifted to investment 

groups, either timber investment management organizations 

or real estate investment trusts. A shift back to forest 

products industry ownership is not expected in future years; 

nor is a reversal in the fragmentation of ownership expected. 

The implications for forest management and forest conditions 

over the long run are unclear, but the ownership change 

signals a change in management objectives and the potential 

for ongoing ownership transitions. Butler and Wear (2013) 

concluded that this shift in ownership will likely increase the 

frequency of forest land transactions in response to changing 

economic conditions. For example, as land increases in value 

for developed uses, investment group managers would be 

somewhat more likely to sell their holdings for development 

than would forest industry owners. The result might not 

be that more land is developed in the long run, but rather 

that development would occur more rapidly. This new 

ownership dynamic would also accelerate the fragmentation 

of ownerships that were once stable. Fragmentation and 

parcelization of family and individually owned forests 

is expected to continue even without the pressure of 

development. Increased parcelization and urbanization 

of private forests could lead to future challenges such as 

difficulties in implementing traditional forestry practices 

on small acreages and reductions in prescribed burning to 

address health and safety concerns and ordinances.

For a broader discussion of forest ownership in the South, see 

Butler and Wear (2013).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 4 37

Invasive Plants

Invasive species as defined under Executive Order 13112 are 

(1) a species that is nonnative (or alien) to the ecosystem under 

consideration, and (2) whose introduction causes or is likely to 

cause economic or environmental harm or harm to humans. 

Across the South, invasive plant species pose a significant 

threat to overall forest health, and will likely be of increasing 

concern over the next 50 years. They can alter forest structure 

and function (Fox and others 2011, Hartman and McCarthy 

2008, Weidenhamer and Callaway 2010), and they can modify 

forest composition by limiting regeneration opportunities for 

native species and reducing habitat quality for a variety of 

vertebrate and invertebrate species. The continued invasions 

that are expected would further alter forest ecosystem 

structure and function resulting in a decrease in overall forest 

health, forest productivity, and ecosystem resistance and 

resilience to disturbances, including climate change. The 

decrease in forest productivity coupled with the high costs 

associated with the control of invasive plants makes them an 

economic as well as an ecological issue for southern forests 

(Holmes and others 2009).

Miller and others (2013) identified 33 of the most common 

invasive plants in the Southern United States from five 

functional groups: (1) trees, (2) woody shrubs, (3) grasses and 

bamboos, (4) vines, and (5) forbs. About 4.4 million acres of the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland are currently affected. In 

terms of absolute acres affected, the Interior Low Plateau section 

contains the highest levels of invasive-plant coverage in the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland, with about 2,272,100 acres 

affected, followed by the Cumberland Plateau and Mountains 

section (783,145 acres), Southern Ridge and Valley section 

(452,521 acres), Northern Ridge and Valley section (266,605 

acres), and Blue Ridge Mountains section (217,832 acres).

Regardless of the specific species, invasion of forest 

communities by nonnative plants is driven largely by 

habitat fragmentation, parcelization, increasing population, 

recreational use, and forest disturbance, all of which are 

forecasted to increase under the Cornerstone Futures. In 

addition, climate change will not only accelerate the rate of 

invasion of invasive plants in a given area, but also facilitate 

movement of specific species into new ecosystems.

Invasive Trees

Of the high priority invasive trees identified by Miller and 

others (2013), tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) covers 

the largest amount of land area in the five AppalachianCumberland sections, with the highest concentrations found 

in the Cumberland Plateau around Nashville, TN, and along 

the Shenandoah Valley in the Northern Ridge and Valley 

section (fig. 33). This species is most commonly located 

along forest roads, but readily invades forest sites that have 

been recently harvested or otherwise disturbed. Because it 

is highly competitive and capable of outgrowing most native 

tree species, tree-of-heaven can dramatically alter forest 

structure, composition, and function.

Because mechanical site preparation before and after 

harvesting can aggravate infestation, in areas of high 

infestation, herbicide treatments are recommended to 

eliminate extant individuals as well as the sprouting potential 

Chapter 4.

Biological Threats

Tree-of-heaven area (acres)

Not detected

< 1,000

1,000 - 5,000

5,000 - 10,000

10,000 - 50,000

50,000 - 100,000

> 100,000

Figure 33—Extent of infestations by tree-of-heaven, 2010, in the U.S. 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland (Source: Forest Inventory and Analysis, 

Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service).
38 Chapter 4 | Biological Threats

of top-killed trees. Total elimination of this species at a stand 

or site-specific level requires long-term surveillance, both 

for new germinants that appear the year after seed fall (no 

viability in the soil seed bank) and for root fragments that 

can readily sprout anytime. The abundance of this species 

is expected to increase over the next 50 years (Miller and 

others 2013).

Invasive Vines

Of the high priority invasive vines identified by Miller and 

others (2013), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) 

covers the largest amount of land area in the AppalachianCumberland highland and its five sections. Concentrations 

of Japanese honeysuckle are particularly high throughout 

the Cumberland Plateau and Mountains and Interior Low 

Plateau sections (fig. 34). It is a particular problem on 

forested sites because of its high tolerance to shade, meaning 

that it can persist in the understory of mature forests for long 

periods of time. In high-light environments that result from 

disturbances, Japanese honeysuckle can grow extremely 

rapidly. Its spread is from the rooting of litter-covered vines, 

which twine around small-diameter woody plants and 

eventually block sunlight to regenerating trees and shrubs—

thereby changing forest structure and composition. It is not 

uncommon for Japanese honeysuckle to become a prominent 

species following canopy-reducing disturbances in many 

forest types across the Southeastern United States (Hull and 

Scott 1982, Schierenbeck 2004, Webster and others 2006).

Control methods are centered on herbicide application 

before any planned disturbances and in the immediate 

years afterward. Winter treatments are possible because it 

is evergreen, and appropriate in areas where safeguarding 

deciduous plants is a goal. As with any control method, 

long-term surveillance is required for successful eradication. 

Over the next 50 years, this species is expected to continue 

to spread and affect forest health throughout all areas of the 

South (Miller and others 2013). Because of the high levels of 

occupation, it can only be treated on high priority sites.

Invasive Shrubs

Of the high threat invasive shrubs identified by Miller and 

others (2013), invasive roses (Rosa spp.) cover the largest 

amount of land area in the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland. Invasive roses have the highest cover relative to the 

other high priority invasive shrubs in all sections, with the 

exception of invasive privets (Ligustrum spp.) in the Southern 

Ridge and Valley section and bush honeysuckles (Lonicera

spp.) in the Interior Low Plateau section. Concentrations 

of invasive roses, and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), 

in particular, are highest in Kentucky and Virginia in the 

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains section and Appalachian 

Mountains (fig. 35).

Although all invasive shrubs in the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland are shade tolerant and capable of surviving in 

interior forest conditions, most are found along forest roads, 

Japanese honeysuckle area (acres)

Not detected

< 1,000

1,000 - 5,000

5,000 - 10,000

10,000 - 50,000

50,000 - 100,000

> 100,000

Figure 34—Extent of infestations by Japanese honeysuckle, 2010, in the 

U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland (Source: Forest Inventory and 

Analysis, Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service).

Nonnative rose area (acres)

Not detected

< 1,000

1,000 - 5,000

5,000 - 10,000

10,000 - 50,000

50,000 - 100,000

> 100,000

Figure 35—Extent of infestations by invasive roses, 2010, in the U.S. 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland (Source: Forest Inventory and Analysis, 

Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 4 39

often extending into open forest habitats. Regeneration 

and spread of these invasive shrubs is the result of fruit 

consumption by birds (Greenberg and Walter 2010) and 

prolific sprouting. Under the current climate, the potential 

habitat for invasive roses, in particular, in the AppalachianCumberland highland is extremely high. Potential habitat 

for invasive roses is lower under Cornerstones A and C, 

but remains high under Cornerstones B and D (Miller and 

others 2013). When infestations occur, natural regeneration 

of native tree species is greatly hindered. Control options 

include foliar herbicide application as well as cut-surface 

application of herbicide. As with any control method, longterm surveillance is required for successful eradication.

Invasive Grasses

Of the high priority invasive grasses identified by Miller 

and others (2013), tall fescue (Schedonorus phoenix) has 

the highest relative cover in the Northern Ridge and Valley, 

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains, and Interior Low 

Plateau sections; and Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium 

vimineum) has the highest relative cover in the Blue Ridge 

Mountains and Southern Ridge and Valley sections. 

Tall fescue is most heavily concentrated in the forests of 

Kentucky, Virginia, and central Tennessee (fig. 36) whereas 

Japanese stiltgrass is most heavily concentrated around 

population centers, such as Asheville, NC, in the Blue Ridge 

Mountains section and Knoxville, TN, in the Southern Ridge 

and Valley section (fig. 37). Although tall fescue is important 

forage for domestic livestock, infestations of this grass 

reduce wildlife habitat quality, especially for ground-nesting 

birds (Barnes and others 1995). Japanese stiltgrass is most 

common along roadsides, forest edges, and streamsides; its 

seeds are easily spread by water and indirectly by hiking and 

other recreational activities.

Potential habitat for Japanese stiltgrass would remain 

constant under Cornerstone B and increase by 91 percent 

under Cornerstone D (Miller and others 2013). In contrast, 

under Cornerstones A and C, potential habitat would be 

greatly reduced because of increased temperatures (Miller 

and others 2013). As with any invasive grass, control efforts 

for both Japanese stiltgrass and tall fescue are centered on 

herbicide application followed by the establishment of natural 

grasses or shade-producing shrubs and trees. Long-term 

surveillance is required for successful eradication.

Invasive Forbs

Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata), the only high priority 

invasive forbs identified by Miller and others (2013), is 

virtually undetected in the Blue Ridge Mountains, Northern 

Ridge and Valley, and Southern Ridge and Valley sections. 

High infestations are found in scattered counties of the 

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains and Interior Low 

Plateau sections (fig. 38). The main impact of garlic mustard 

infestations is the loss of herbaceous vegetation, resulting in 

a decrease in understory diversity and richness.

Tall fescue area (acres)

Not detected

< 1,000

1,000 - 5,000

5,000 - 10,000

10,000 - 50,000

50,000 - 100,000

> 100,000

Figure 36—Extent of infestations by tall fescue, 2010, in the U.S. 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland (Source: Forest Inventory and Analysis, 

Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service).

Not detected

< 1,000

1,000 - 5,000

5,000 - 10,000

10,000 - 50,000

50,000 - 100,000

> 100,000

Japanese stiltgrass area (acres)

Figure 37—Extent of infestations by Japanese stiltgrass, 2010, in the U.S. 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland (Source: Forest Inventory and Analysis, 

Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service).
40 Chapter 4 | Biological Threats

Over the next 50 years, the cover of garlic mustard is 

forecasted to increase by 45 percent (Miller and others 

2013). Control and eradication efforts are centered on foliar 

herbicide applications and long-term surveillance.

Summary

The continued spread of invasive plants will modify species 

composition, habitat quality, and overall forest productivity 

as well as greatly limit forest management opportunities 

in affected stands and forests. The resulting alteration of 

ecosystem structure and function could ultimately decrease 

resistance and resilience to future disturbances, including 

climate change. Loss of forest productivity coupled with 

the negative effects that invasive plants have on other 

ecosystem services (such as wildlife habitat quality, 

overall forest health, and biodiversity), makes their control 

an important ecological as well as economic concern. 

Although eradication may only be possible at a local 

scale, slowing the rate of spread may be possible through 

increased awareness and knowledge. Education will be 

particularly important in and around areas forecasted 

to experience dramatic increases in population (such as 

existing population centers).

For a broader discussion of invasive plants in the South, see 

Miller and others (2013).

Insect and Disease Pests

Forests pest and disease outbreaks act as disturbance events 

that exert an enormous influence on the overall structure 

and function of southern forests. They not only affect overall 

ecosystem health, but their presence or potential threat to a 

particular system can also influence management decisions. 

Therefore, understanding the effect that forest insects and 

diseases have on forest resources is critical to maintaining 

ecosystem services provided by southern forests currently 

as well as into the future. A mixture of native and nonnative 

species comprise the 30 most important insect and disease 

agents identified by Duerr and Mistretta (2013).

Forest Insects

Numerous insect species currently affect or will likely 

affect the forests of the Appalachian-Cumberland highland. 

Although all forests pests can be problematic and all have the 

potential to impact vast areas of forest land, a few species are 

of particular importance because of their current or potential 

effects on forest structure, function, and composition. The 

four insects identified by Duerr and Mistretta (2013) that are 

of particular importance in the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland are described below.

Balsam woolly adelgid—Balsam woolly adelgid (Adelges 

piceae) was introduced from Europe around 1900 

(Ragenovich and Mitchell 2006). It poses a continued threat 

to the structure, composition, and function of spruce-fir 

forests, which are restricted to high elevations in the southern 

Appalachian Mountains. Although Fraser fir is the only 

species directly affected by the adelgid, indirect effects of 

infestations are numerous, given the numerous plant and 

animal species that require mature spruce-fir forests for 

survival (Trani Griep and Collins 2013). All five major 

areas of high-elevation spruce-fir forests—including parts 

of North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia—are infested, 

and about 95 percent of the mature (>40 years of age) Fraser 

fir component of the spruce-fir ecosystem has been directly 

killed by the adelgid. The loss of mature trees has left the fir 

component in the spruce-fir ecosystem primarily comprised 

of younger (<40 year) trees, which may not provide the same 

benefits that older, more mature trees provide. Predicted 

levels of climate change would mean a reduction in the area 

suitable to spruce-fir forests but would not have any direct 

effect on the adelgid itself.

Insecticides are the only method of control for the adelgid, 

but application of insecticides is only practical as a targeted 

effort in high-value populations, such as Christmas tree 

plantations, not on landscape level in natural, forest settings.

Not detected

< 1,000

1,000 - 5,000

5,000 - 10,000

10,000 - 50,000

50,000 - 100,000

> 100,000

Garlic mustard area (acres)

Figure 38—Extent of infestations by garlic mustard, 2010, in the U.S. 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland (Source: Forest Inventory and Analysis, 

Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 4 41

Increased temperature and decreased precipitation will likely 

have the effect of both shrinking the range of spruce-fir 

forests now isolated on mountaintops and increasing adelgid 

activity and damage. If these trends continue unabated, 

natural populations of southern Fraser fir could disappear 

over the next 50 years.

Hemlock woolly adelgid—Hemlock woolly adelgid 

(Adelges tsugae) is an aphid-like insect native to Japan, that 

was first observed in or around the Richmond, VA area in the 

1950s (McClure and others 2001). Susceptible host species 

include eastern (Tsuga canadensis) and Carolina hemlock 

(Tsuga caroliniana). Since its introduction, the adelgid has 

infested about half of the range of eastern hemlock—from 

Georgia to Maine—although winter temperatures ≤20 °C 

diminish population densities (Trotter and Shields 2009). 

Consequently, although warming temperatures associated 

with climate change would have little impact on its southern 

extent, the extent of and mortality caused by hemlock 

woolly adelgid infestations in more northerly latitudes 

could increase. The rate of spread ranges from 12.5 km/

year (Evans and Gregoire 2007) to between 20 and 30 km/

year, with dispersal primarily through wildlife (McClure 

1990). Following infestation, hemlock trees, both eastern 

and Carolina hemlock species, die in as little as 2 to 6 years 

(McClure and others 2001, Ragenovich and Mitchell 2006).

The vast majority of the native range of hemlock in the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland is infested by hemlock 

woolly adelgid (fig. 39). A variety of methods are being 

examined for control or treatment (or both). For individual 

trees (such as ornamentals and highly valued trees), systemic 

insecticides are effective, although treatments are short lived 

and must be repeated. Because these chemical treatments 

applied at the individual-tree level are not practical at the 

landscape level or even at the stand level, other efforts such 

as biological control are being investigated.

The loss of hemlock from the landscape has numerous 

ecological consequences. Eastern hemlock is a primary 

component of riparian and acidic and moist cove forests 

in the Appalachian-Cumberland highland, and Carolina 

hemlock grows in low elevation ridgetop locations and dry 

rocky outcrops. Considered a foundational species (Ellison 

and others 2005), eastern hemlock is long-lived and the most 

shade-tolerant of the Appalachian-Cumberland conifers. 

Eastern hemlock forests support a vast array of wildlife 

species not found in companion mixed-hardwood forests 

(Snyder and others 2002), exert a large influence over the 

hydrological cycle (Jenkins and others 1999), and are a 

critical component of the nutrient cycle and stream chemistry 

(Ford and Vose 2007). As they succumb to infestations 

by the adelgid, the composition of the regeneration layer 

is largely rhododendron. In places where rhododendron is 

not available for regeneration, mixed-hardwood species—

such as oak, sweet birch (Bentula lenta), red maple (Acer 

rubrum), beech, and yellow-poplar—will dominate (Ford and 

others 2012, Spaulding and Rieske 2010). The replacement 

of eastern hemlock by these species will ultimately alter 

ecosystem structure and function and could alter ecosystems 

by changing the physical structure of streams, increasing 

canopy openness, light, and stream temperatures—all of 

which would have substantial impacts on wildlife habitat 

(Vose and others 2013, Webster and others 2012) and 

hydrologic processes (Ford and Vose 2007). To avoid these 

cascading ecological consequences, restoration activities that 

mitigate the negative effects of eastern hemlock losses have 

become a primary management concern.

Emerald ash borer—In North America, emerald ash borer 

(Agrilus planipennis) was first identified in six counties 

in southeastern Michigan and the Canadian Province of 

Ontario in 2002. This wood-boring insect is native to Asia 

and was likely introduced in solid-wood packing material. 

Susceptible hosts in the eastern landscapes of North 

American include all 16 species of ash (Fraxinus spp.). Tree 

decline and subsequent death are caused by the disruption 

of nutrient and water transport by larvae (McCullough and 

others 2008). Despite strict Federal and State quarantine and 

control efforts, emerald ash borer has spread to 17 States, 

including three—Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia—in 

the Appalachian-Cumberland highland. Its rapid movement 

across the forests of the Eastern United States is thought to 

have occurred from the transportation of ash nursery stock, 

harvested logs, and firewood (McCullough and others 2008).

Ash is a relatively minor component of AppalachianCumberland forest ecosystems, with green ash (Fraxinus 

Uninfested county

Infested county

Eastern hemlock range (in county)

Figure 39—Native range of eastern hemlock and extent of infestation 

by hemlock woolly adelgid in the Eastern United States in 2012 (Source: 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: http://na.fs.fed.us/

fhp/hwa/maps/2012.pdf. [Date accessed: August 22, 2013]).
42 Chapter 4 | Biological Threats

pennsylvanica) and white ash (Fraxinus americana) being 

the most common species. Green ash is primarily located 

in riparian areas, and white ash is a component of upland 

hardwood forests. Outside the forests, ash is most prevalent 

in urban areas, used for residential and commercial 

landscaping and in parks and other public places in the 1970s 

and 1980s to replace American elm (Ulmus americana), 

which died after the introduction of Dutch elm disease.

In the next 50 years (2010 to 2060), emerald ash borer will 

likely kill most rural and urban ash trees in the AppalachianCumberland highland, costing millions of dollars and 

producing unknown ecological consequences. Although, 

control can be achieved through chemical treatments that are 

only feasible on select individual, high-value trees. Given 

that all ash trees are susceptible and that chemical control 

on a landscape-level is not practical, the creation of “ash 

conservation areas” where small pockets of ash are treated 

and maintained is recommended (Duerr and Mistretta 2013).

Several larval and egg parasitoids are being investigated 

for use as biological control agents (U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

2010). Although results are preliminary, these biological 

control agents would likely mitigate populations but would 

not control or completely stop the spread and impacts of this 

insect invader.

Gypsy moth—Gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) is a 

defoliating insect introduced into the United States from 

Europe in 1869. Individual gypsy moths, mostly males, are 

located throughout the Appalachian-Cumberland highland, 

but these isolated individuals are either eradicated or do 

not cause damage—as it is only in the larval stages that 

gypsy moths feed and cause damage. In the AppalachianCumberland highland, established gypsy moth populations 

are currently limited to Virginia. However, if infestations 

continue to spread at a rate of 7 to 10 miles per year (Sharov 

and others 2002), much of the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland will contain gypsy moth populations in the next 50 

years (2010 to 2060). Hosts favored by the gypsy moth include 

some of the most prominent Appalachian-Cumberland forest 

species, including most oaks as well as basswood. Some 

of the prominent species of limited favorability to gypsy 

moth include yellow-poplar, red maple, American beech, 

sweet birch, yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), black 

cherry (Prunus serotina), pines, sugar maple, cucumber tree 

(Magnolia accuminata), and most hickories.

Gypsy moth outbreaks generally last 1 to 5 years (Kauffman 

and Clatterbuck 2006). After outbreaks, populations decrease 

and remain relatively low for 4 to 12 years (McCullough and 

others 1995). In general, single-year defoliation results in 

only a slight reduction in growth. If defoliation exceeds 50 

percent or occurs over multiple years, trees become stressed 

and can eventually die (Kauffman and Clatterbuck 2006).

Unlike efforts to control many other nonnative insects 

(such as emerald ash borer and hemlock woolly adelgid), 

management activities exist that can suppress gypsy 

moth outbreaks on a landscape level. Mitigation efforts 

are especially important in the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland where preferred oak species dominate the 

landscape. Many of these management actions revolve 

around silvicultural manipulation of forest structure or 

composition (or both), but the biological control agent Bt 

(Bacillus thuringiensis) and chemical controls such as 

insecticides and pheromones are also used to eradicate 

advancing populations and suppress active infestations.

Silvicultural treatments that increase resilience to gypsy 

moth outbreaks are centered on timber harvests and 

intermediate management activities. In mature stands, 

harvesting species favored by the gypsy moth can yield 

financial return along with reducing the susceptibility of the 

regenerating stand. Thinning and other intermediate standdensity management activities can enlarge crowns, reduce 

competition for resources, and improve overall health—all of 

which are useful in reducing mortality following defoliation 

(Muzika and others 1998).

Managing for trees that are not preferred by gypsy moth 

can increase resistance to an outbreak. However, this 

approach could conflict with other forest management 

goals in the Appalachian-Cumberland highland (Muzika 

and Liebhold 2000) because it would mean substantially 

reducing the component of mixed-hardwood or oakdominated stands—oak—that is of high ecological and 

economic importance (Kauffman and Clatterbuck 2006, 

McCullough and others 1995).

Pathogens/Disease Complexes

The list of pathogens that affect forests in the AppalachianCumberland highland is extensive and includes notable 

diseases, such as chestnut blight (which eliminated American 

chestnut as a canopy tree species in the early 20th century), 

Dutch elm disease, butternut canker, dogwood anthracnose, 

and beech bark disease. These diseases continue to shape 

forest structure and composition, but their effects have 

already been realized or will be limited to a small number of 

Appalachian-Cumberland species—unlike the three diseases 

described below.

Two of the diseases described below are particularly 

important to the Appalachian-Cumberland highland because 

they impact primarily oaks, which occupy >50 percent of 

the forested land base throughout the Central Hardwood 

Region (Johnson and others 2002) and are often considered 
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 4 43

a keystone species because of their value to ecosystem 

structure and function and their economic importance. The 

third—thousand cankers disease—threatens walnuts, a small 

component of Appalachian-Cumberland forests that has high 

societal and economic values.

Oak decline —Oak decline is a disease complex in which 

a slow progression of crown dieback eventually results in 

tree mortality. Oak decline begins with an environmental 

stress—such as drought, late spring frosts, or defoliation—

that weakens trees and increases susceptibility to secondary 

pests and pathogens. These secondary hosts—including the 

two-lined chestnut borer (Agrilus bilineatus), hypoxylon 

cankers (Xylaria hypoxylon), and armillaria root rot 

(Armillaria mellea)—contribute to the further decline and 

eventual mortality of oak trees. Although all the predominant 

Appalachian-Cumberland oak species are susceptible to 

oak decline, species in the red oak subgenera—particularly 

black oak, and scarlet oak—are most vulnerable. Other 

attributes that predispose oaks to decline are advanced age 

(>70 years), high oak basal area, poor site quality, and poor 

soil conditions such as shallow, rocky soils or soils with high 

clay content (Oak and others 1996). Oak decline can act at 

both the individual-tree (Greenberg and others 2011) and 

landscape scales (Haavik and others 2012).

Over the next 50 years (2010 to 2060), the occurrence 

and spatial extent of oak decline events could increase in 

Appalachian-Cumberland forests. Warming temperatures and 

more frequent and longer episodic drought events coupled 

with continued aging of existing stands would further 

predispose these forests to oak decline. Mitigation measures 

that could promote resilience to future oak decline events 

include preferentially favoring species—such as white oak 

and chestnut oak—that are less susceptible to oak decline, 

increasing overall tree diversity, and increasing individual 

tree vigor by thinning and implementing other intermediate 

stand-management activities (Haavik and others 2012).

Sudden oak death—Sudden oak death, caused by a fungus 

(Phytophthora ramorum) is a disease that kills many oak 

species; symptoms begin with stem cankers and crown 

dieback followed by eventual tree death. First identified in 

1995, sudden oak death is currently limited to California 

and southwestern Oregon where it has devastating effects 

on tanoaks (Lithocarpus densiflorus), coast live oaks (Q. 

agrifolia), and California black oaks (Q. kelloggii). Although 

a wide variety of other hosts exist in the Western United 

States, the pathogen generally does not cause mortality in 

these species (O’Brien and others 2002).

Although currently confined to the West Coast, the 

pathogen is known to infect nursery stock that is widely 

traded across the United States. According to the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (2010), all Appalachian-Cumberland 

States except Kentucky have had nursery stock test positive 

for the sudden oak death fungus.

The forests of the Eastern United States are home to a 

wide variety of confirmed and potential host species 

(Rizzo and others 2002, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 2010), 

including oaks (in particular northern red oak), mountain 

laurel, rhododendron species, and arrowwood (Viburnum 

dentatum). The consequences of the introduction of sudden 

oak death to eastern forests would be profound. With oak 

comprising as much as 60 to 80 percent of the basal area 

of Appalachian-Cumberland forests (fig. 40), the role that 

these oak forests play in ecology and economics is pivotal. 

Widespread mortality of oak would alter ecosystem structure 

and function, reduce biodiversity, and modify the habitat 

of numerous plants and animals, including species of 

conservation concern (Kliejunas 2003).

The introduction of sudden oak death into upland oak 

ecosystems of the Appalachian-Cumberland highland 

during the next 50 years (2010 to 2060) is not a certainty. 

Although quarantine efforts and regulations, testing 

programs for the fungus, educational outreach, and 

improved nursery practices do not guarantee the pathogen 

will not establish, these control efforts appear to be 

effective to date. However, the abundance of host species 

coupled with continued trade of nursery stock from infected 

areas guarantees that sudden oak death will continue to be 

a high priority forest health issue.

Thousand cankers disease—Thousand cankers disease, 

first recognized in 2008 in the Western United States, 

causes branch dieback and eventual tree death of walnut 

trees (Juglans spp.). The disease is caused by a fungus 

(Geosmithia morbida) of unknown origin, which is vectored 

by the walnut twig beetle (Pityophthorous juglandis). The 

walnut twig beetle is native to North America (primarily the 

Southwestern United States), but its presence alone (without 

the fungus) does not cause significant mortality (Seybold 

and others 2011). It is only when the walnut twig beetle is 

associated with the fungus that symptoms occur. These 

include branch mortality, small cankers on the branches 

and bole, and entrance and exit holes used by the walnut 

twig beetle on dead and dying branches (Seybold and others 

2011). Mortality is ultimately caused by numerous coalescing 

cankers that develop around individual beetle wounds and 

that ultimately girdle the tree (Cranshaw and Tisserat 2012).

In the Appalachian-Cumberland highland, hosts include 

black walnut (Juglans nigra), a source of high-quality lumber 

and veneer, and butternut (Juglans cinerea), of interest 

because of its rarity. Although rarely found in pure stands, 

black walnut occurs as scattered individuals in upland 
44 Chapter 4 | Biological Threats

oak-hickory forests. Throughout Appalachian-Cumberland 

landscapes, the most recently summarized survey data 

estimate the live tree volume of black walnut to be about 

594.8 million cubic feet (USDA Forest Service 2012).

Confirmed detection of thousand cankers disease is limited 

to urban settings in four Tennessee counties, with suspected 

infections occurring in 10 additional counties (Duerr and 

Mistretta 2013). Additionally, a positive identification of 

thousand cankers disease recently (2013) occurred in western 

North Carolina (Haywood County) resulting in wood 

products quarantine. In the absence of recognized methods 

for alleviating symptoms or stopping the disease, the only 

recommended controls are quarantines on the movement 

of wood in and around known areas of infestations and 

quick and intense sanitation once the disease has been 

detected (Cranshaw and Tisserat 2012). In the next 50 years 

(2010 to 2060), thousand cankers disease will likely be 

found throughout the range of walnut in the AppalachianCumberland highland given that few barriers, including 

climate, exist to stop the movement of walnut twig beetles 

and infected wood.

Summary

In the Appalachian-Cumberland highland, the relationships 

among insects, pathogens, and other drivers of future forest 

conditions are complex and, for the most part, unknown. 

However, climate change is likely to exacerbate the impact 

or increase the aggressiveness (or both) of some insects 

and pathogens. Given past trends, future importation 

of additional invasive insects and pathogens through 

international and domestic commerce and travel is also 

likely. This means that forest pests, either known or as yet 

unknown, will continue to be a primary disturbance, and 

directly and indirectly drive structural and compositional 

changes in forests (Lovett and others 2006).

For a broader discussion of insects and diseases in the South, 

see Duerr and Mistretta (2013).

Oak (in percent ba/acre)

0 - 20%

20% - 40%

40% - 60%

60% - 80%

80+

Figure 40—Oak abundance (expressed as a percent of basal area/acre) in the U.S Appalachian-Cumberland highland (Source: Moser and others 2006).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 45

Forest Conditions

Across the Appalachian-Cumberland highland, terrain, 

geology, climate, and soils combine in many ways to produce 

a highly complex landscape where site quality and productive 

capacity vary. Most of the variation in productivity is driven 

by variation in moisture available within as well as among the 

sections comprising the Appalachian-Cumberland highland.

The structure and composition of southern forests have also 

been shaped by past patterns of land use. During the early 

part of the 20th century, widespread exploitive logging, 

resource extraction (such as coal mining), land clearing for 

agriculture, and subsequent land abandonment followed by 

forest reestablishment were the dominant forces shaping 

the structure and function of southern forests (chapter 1). 

In more recent history, however, the condition of forests 

across the South has been more heavily influenced by rates 

of urbanization coupled with fluctuating timber markets. In 

2006, an estimated 62 percent (or 9.7 billion cubic feet) of 

all growing stock removals in the United States occurred in 

southern forests, with 70 percent softwoods and 30 percent 

hardwoods (Smith and others 2009).

Forest Area

In 2010, forest land accounted for 35.4 million acres 

(table 9), or 57 percent of the about 62.3 million total acres 

in the Appalachian-Cumberland highland. Of the 35.4 

million acres 81 percent was classified as upland hardwoods 

Chapter 5.

Effects on Forests and their Values

Oak Regeneration—A Special Challenge in the Appalachian-Cumberland Highland

In all five sections of the Appalachian-Cumberland highland, oak-dominated forests and mixed-hardwood forests 

that have oaks as a substantial component are an important resource, both economically and ecologically. Failure of 

successful oak regeneration has long been identified as a high-priority management issue, and is a particularly large 

problem on mid- to high-quality sites (for example, submesic to mesic sites with high site index values) following forest 

management activities (such as regeneration harvesting). This failure is ultimately the result if large oak seedlings 

(seedlings >4 feet tall) or saplings are absent from the understory at the time of harvesting; the cause is a multitude of 

interacting factors, including a change in climate from frequent multi-year droughts to a period of increased moisture, 

land use changes, changes in fire regimes from relatively frequent low-intensity fires to a period of fire suppression, 

the loss of American chestnut, fluctuating herbivore populations, changing forest structure, fewer canopy-gap creating 

disturbances, and extirpation or elimination of species such as passenger pigeon, woodland bison, and elk (Buchanan 

and Hart 2012, McEwan and others 2011, Spetich and others 2011, Yarnell 1998). In general, management activities 

that dramatically reduce the forest canopy without the presence of large oak seedlings or small oak saplings in the 

understory often result in oak regeneration failure because competitors that include species such as yellow-poplar and 

red maple quickly outcompete the small, slower growing oak seedlings. Ultimately it is this failure of oak to regenerate 

following stand-replacing disturbances that is the primary factor leading to an underrepresentation of the oak-dominated 

and mixed-oak forest types in the younger age classes.

Table 9—Forest area, 2010, in the five sections of the U.S. 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland

Section Area 

million acres

Blue Ridge Mountains 7.35

Northern Ridge and Valley 4.69

Southern Ridge and Valley 2.09

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains 9.73

Interior Low Plateau 11.54
46 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

(fig. 41) followed by oak-pine (7 percent), natural pine (6 

percent), lowland hardwoods (4 percent), and planted pine (1 

percent). Continued changes in the societal forces that shape 

forest conditions, including urbanization, parcelization, and 

current and future timber markets, have the potential to alter 

forest conditions in the Appalachian-Cumberland highland.

Growing Stock

Blue Ridge Mountains section—Growing stock volume 

increased 24 percent over the past 10 years. Currently (2010), 

the hardwood growing stock volume in the section is 12.28 

billion cubic feet, an increase of about 2.34 billion cubic feet. 

Softwood growing stock volume is currently at 3.26 billion 

cubic feet, an increase of 0.17 billion cubic feet.

Interior Low Plateau section—Growing stock volume has 

increased slightly over the past 10 years. Currently (2010), 

hardwood growing stock is 16.33 billion cubic feet, an increase 

of about 3.92 billion cubic feet or 32 percent. Currently (2010), 

softwood growing stock volume is about 1.17 billion cubic feet, 

an increase of 0.15 billion cubic feet; although not substantial 

in absolute terms, this represents a 15 percent increase in 

softwood growing stock volume. The Interior Low Plateau 

section has the largest amount of hardwood growing stock 

volume, reflecting the size of this section relative to the other 

Appalachian-Cumberland sections.

Northern Ridge and Valley section—Both hardwood and 

softwood growing stock volumes have decreased slightly 

over the past 10 years. Currently (2010), the volume of 

hardwood growing stock is 6.64 billion cubic feet, a decrease 

of about 0.09 billion cubic feet or 1 percent. Softwood 

growing stock volume is currently at 1.03 billion cubic feet, a 

decrease of 0.01 billion cubic feet or 1 percent.

Southern Ridge and Valley section—The Southern Ridge 

and Valley section has experienced the largest proportional 

change in both hardwood and softwood growing stock 

volume of the Appalachian-Cumberland sections over the 

past 10 years. Currently (2010), the hardwood growing stock 

volume in the section is 3.07 billion cubic feet, an increase 

of about 1.01 billion cubic feet, or 50 percent. Softwood 

growing stock volume is currently at 0.39 billion cubic feet, a 

decrease of 0.25 billion cubic feet or 40 percent.

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains section—Currently 

(2010), hardwood growing stock volume is 15.19 billion cubic 

feet, an increase of about 3.59 billion cubic feet or 31 percent 

higher than 10 years ago. Softwood growing stock volume is 

currently at 1.24 billion cubic feet, a decrease of 0.42 billion 

cubic feet or 25 percent.

Projections of forest conditions were based on the four 

Cornerstone Futures (A through D) discussed above, plus 

two others that assume alternative levels of tree planting: 

Cornerstone E represents Cornerstone A (low population 

growth and high energy use/economic growth) with an 

increase from current planting levels, and Cornerstone F 

represents Cornerstone D (moderate population/income 

growth and energy use) with a decrease in planting (Wear 

and others 2013).

Forest Area Projections

Under all six Cornerstone Futures, forests across the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland are forecasted to 

decrease over the next 50 years (fig. 42). Unlike areas of 

the South where changes in forest conditions are more 

heavily influenced by harvesting and future timber 

markets (primarily areas that are dominated by softwood 

forest types), in the Appalachian-Cumberland highland, 

where hardwood forest types dominate the landscape, the 

condition and status of forests are most heavily influenced 

by urbanization-driven land use changes, which are closely 

linked with changes in population and income.

Because future changes in forested acreage in the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland are primarily driven by 

urbanization, the proportion of forest land forecasted to 

Area (million acres)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

Blue 

Ridge

Northern

Ridge

and 

Valley 

Mountains

Southern

Ridge

and

Valley 

Cumberland

Plateau 

and

Mountains

Interior

Low

Plateau

Upland hardwoods

Natural pine Oak-pine

Planted pine

Lowland hardwoods

Figure 41—Forest area, 2010, by forest management type and section of the 

U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland.
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 47

be lost over the next 50 years varies considerably under the 

Cornerstone Futures, as well as among the five AppalachianCumberland sections. If planting rates are held at baseline 

levels (excluding Cornerstones E and F) the largest loss 

of forest area would occur under Cornerstone B (high 

population and income growth coupled with decreasing 

timber prices): 9.7 percent by 2060, with the largest losses 

in the Northern Ridge and Valley (13.8 percent), Interior 

Low Plateau (13.7 percent), and Blue Ridge Mountains 

(10.6 percent) sections (fig. 43). An improvement in timber 

markets, even under high population and income growth, 

would somewhat ameliorate losses as evidenced by the 

more optimistic projections under Cornerstone A, where 

higher timber prices shift some rural land toward forest uses 

resulting in a loss of 5.4 percent (fig. 43).

The lowest rate of forest loss is expected to occur under 

Cornerstone C (low population and income growth coupled 

with increasing timber prices): a decrease of 2.2 percent, 

with the largest losses in the Southern Ridge and Valley (6.7 

percent) and Blue Ridge Mountains (3.9 percent) 

sections (fig. 43). The effect of timber prices on the amount 

of forest land comes into play again under Cornerstone D 

(low population and income growth and decreasing timber 

prices): at 6 percent, losses are slightly higher than under 

Cornerstone C (fig. 43).

Under all Cornerstone Futures, the loss of forest acreage 

across the Appalachian-Cumberland highland is forecasted 

to occur concomitantly with changes in forest management. 

Currently dominant, upland hardwood forests are forecasted 

to experience decreases that range from 3.4 percent under 

Cornerstone C (1.0 million acres) to 10.4 percent under 

Cornerstone B (2.98 million acres) by 2060 (fig. 44); the 

Interior Low Plateau, Southern Ridge and Valley, and the 

Blue Ridge Mountains sections are expected to experience 

the largest proportional losses (fig. 45). Notwithstanding, 

the amount of area occupied by the oak-hickory cover type, 

which is the most prominent cover type in upland hardwood 

forests, is expected to remain fairly constant across the 

Cornerstone Futures.

Under all Cornerstone Futures, natural pine, oak-pine, and 

lowland hardwood acreages are expected to decrease across 

the Appalachian-Cumberland highland (fig. 44), but planted 

pine acreage is expected to increase slightly (fig. 44). 

Figures 46 through 49 show forecasted acreage in natural 

pine, oak-pine, planted pine, and lowland hardwoods by 

Appalachian-Cumberland section under Cornerstones 

A through F. If planting rates are held at baseline levels 

(excluding Cornerstones E and F), the largest loss of natural 

pine and oak-pine acreage would occur under Cornerstone 

B: 29 percent for natural pine and 18 percent for oak-pine. 

The largest decrease in the natural pine management type 

would occur under Cornerstone E, which has the highest 

planting rates and largest increase in the planted pine. 

If planting rates are held at baseline levels (excluding 

Cornerstones E and F), the amount of acreage occupied by 

planted pine would be largest under Cornerstone C, with 

>1.1 million acres of pine plantations predicted to exist by 

2060. If planting rates increase, the acreage of planted pine 

is forecasted to approach 2.1 million acres (Cornerstone E). 

Under all Cornerstone Futures, the Blue Ridge Mountains 

and Interior Low Plateau sections are forecasted to have the 

largest planted acreages by 2060. However, it is the Northern 

Ridge and Valley section that is forecasted to experience the 

largest proportional increase in the amount of the planted 

pine management type. Despite these apparent increases, 

planted pine acreage is still forecasted to comprise only 6 

percent of the Appalachian-Cumberland land base under the 

most favorable conditions (Cornerstone E), suggesting it will 

continue to be of minor importance.

Area (million acres)

31

32

33

34

35

36

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

A and E

B 

C

D and F

Cornerstone Futures

Figure 42—Forecasted change in forest area, 2010 to 2060, in the U.S. 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland under six alternative scenarios 

(Wear and others 2013): moderate urbanization/increasing timber 

prices (Cornerstone A), moderate urbanization/decreasing timber prices 

(Cornerstone B), low urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone 

C), low urbanization/decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone D), moderate 

urbanization/increasing timber prices/increased tree planting (Cornerstone 

E), and low urbanization/decreasing timber prices/decreased tree planting 

(Cornerstone F).
48 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (million acres)

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

7.2

7.4

Area (million acres)

1.8

1.8

1.9

1.9

2.0

2.0

2.1

2.1

2.2

Area (million acres)

9.0

9.1

9.2

9.3

9.4

9.5

9.6

9.7

9.8

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (million acres)

9.8

10.0

10.2

10.4

10.6

10.8

11.0

11.2

11.4

11.6

11.8

Year

Year

Year Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (million acres)

4.5

4.6

4.6

4.7

4.7

4.8

Year

(A) Blue Ridge Mountains (B) Northern Ridge and Valley

(C) Southern Ridge and Valley (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains

(E) Interior Low Plateau Cornerstones A and E

Cornerstone B 

Cornerstone C

Cornerstones D and F

Figure 43—Forecasted change in forest area for the five sections of the U.S. 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland—(A) Blue Ridge Mountains, 

(B) Northern Ridge and Valley, (C) Southern Ridge and Valley, 

(D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains, and (E) and Interior Low 

Plateau—under six alternative scenarios (Wear and others 2013): moderate 

urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone A), moderate 

urbanization/decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone B), low urbanization/

increasing timber prices (Cornerstone C), low urbanization/decreasing 

timber prices (Cornerstone D), moderate urbanization/increasing timber 

prices/increased tree planting (Cornerstone E), and low urbanization/

decreasing timber prices/decreased tree planting (Cornerstone F).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 49

Cornerstone A

Cornerstone B

Cornerstone C

Cornerstone D

Cornerstone E

Cornerstone F

2.1

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

2.2

Area (million acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (million acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

29.0

28.5

28.0

27.5

27.0

26.5

26.0

25.5

Area (million acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

2.5

2.4

2.3

2.2

2.1

2.0

1.9

Area (million acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

1.5

1.5

1.4

1.4

1.3

1.3

1.2

Area (million acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

2.2

(A) Upland hardwoods (B) Natural pine

(C) Oak-pine (D) Lowland hardwoods

(E) Planted pine

Figure 44—Forecasted changes in forest area in the U.S. AppalachianCumberland highland by forest management types—(A) upland 

hardwoods, (B) natural pine, (C) oak-pine, (D) lowland hardwoods, and 

(E) planted pine—under six alternative scenarios (Wear and others 2013): 

moderate urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone A), moderate 

urbanization/decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone B), low urbanization/

increasing timber prices (Cornerstone C), low urbanization/decreasing 

timber prices (Cornerstone D), moderate urbanization/increasing timber 

prices/increased tree planting (Cornerstone E), and low urbanization/

decreasing timber prices/decreased tree planting (Cornerstone F).
50 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

Cornerstone A

Cornerstone B

Cornerstone C

Cornerstone D

Cornerstone E

Cornerstone F

Area (million acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (million acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (million acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (million acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (million acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

5.8

5.9

5.6

5.7

5.4

5.5

5.1

5.2

5.3

1.6

1.7

1.5

1.6

1.4

1.5

1.4

4.0

4.1

3.9

4.0

3.8

3.9

3.8

8.6

8.7

8.4

8.5

8.2

8.3

8.0

7.9

8.1

8.6

8.8

8.2

8.4

7.6

8.0

7.8

7.4

(A) Blue Ridge Mountains (B) Northern Ridge and Valley

(C) Southern Ridge and Valley (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains

(E) Interior Low Plateau

Figure 45—Forecasted change in upland hardwood forest area for the 

five sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland—(A) Blue 

Ridge Mountains, (B) Northern Ridge and Valley, (C) Southern Ridge 

and Valley, (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains, and (E) and Interior 

Low Plateau—under six alternative scenarios (Wear and others 2013): 

moderate urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone A), moderate 

urbanization/decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone B), low urbanization/

increasing timber prices (Cornerstone C), low urbanization/decreasing 

timber prices (Cornerstone D), moderate urbanization/increasing timber 

prices/increased tree planting (Cornerstone E), and low urbanization/

decreasing timber prices/decreased tree planting (Cornerstone F).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 51

Cornerstone A

Cornerstone B

Cornerstone C

Cornerstone D

Cornerstone E

Cornerstone F

Area (thousand acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (thousand acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (thousand acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (thousand acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (thousand acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

700

650

600

550

500

450

400

350

360

340

320

300

280

260

240

220

200

(A) Blue Ridge Mountains (B) Northern Ridge and Valley

(C) Southern Ridge and Valley (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains

(E) Interior Low Plateau

Figure 46—Forecasted change in natural pine forest area for the five 

sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland—(A) Blue Ridge 

Mountains, (B) Northern Ridge and Valley, (C) Southern Ridge and 

Valley, (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains, and (E) and Interior 

Low Plateau—under six alternative scenarios (Wear and others 2013): 

moderate urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone A), moderate 

urbanization/decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone B), low urbanization/

increasing timber prices (Cornerstone C), low urbanization/decreasing 

timber prices (Cornerstone D), moderate urbanization/increasing timber 

prices/increased tree planting (Cornerstone E), and low urbanization/

decreasing timber prices/decreased tree planting (Cornerstone F).
52 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

Cornerstone A

Cornerstone B

Cornerstone C

Cornerstone D

Cornerstone E

Cornerstone F

Area (thousand acres)

Year

Area (thousand acres)

Year

Area (thousand acres)

Year

Area (thousand acres)

Year

Area (thousand acres)

Year

180

175

170

165

160

155

150

145

140

135

740

720

700

680

660

640

620

600

580

560

540

520

820

800

780

760

740

720

700

680

660

640

620

360

350

340

330

320

310

300

290

280

270

410

405

400

395

390

385

380

375

370

365

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

(A) Blue Ridge Mountains (B) Northern Ridge and Valley

(C) Southern Ridge and Valley (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains

(E) Interior Low Plateau

Figure 47—Forecasted change in oak-pine forest area for the five 

sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland—(A) Blue Ridge 

Mountains, (B) Northern Ridge and Valley, (C) Southern Ridge and 

Valley, (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains, and (E) and Interior 

Low Plateau—under six alternative scenarios (Wear and others 2013): 

moderate urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone A), moderate 

urbanization/decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone B), low urbanization/

increasing timber prices (Cornerstone C), low urbanization/decreasing 

timber prices (Cornerstone D), moderate urbanization/increasing timber 

prices/increased tree planting (Cornerstone E), and low urbanization/

decreasing timber prices/decreased tree planting (Cornerstone F).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 53

Cornerstone A

Cornerstone B

Cornerstone C

Cornerstone D

Cornerstone E

Cornerstone F

Area (thousand acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (thousand acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (thousand acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (thousand acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (thousand acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

500

400

300

200

100

0

650

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

280

260

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

130

120

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

700

650

600

550

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

(A) Blue Ridge Mountains (B) Northern Ridge and Valley

(C) Southern Ridge and Valley (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains

(E) Interior Low Plateau

Figure 48—Forecasted change in planted pine forest area for the five 

sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland—(A) Blue Ridge 

Mountains, (B) Northern Ridge and Valley, (C) Southern Ridge and 

Valley, (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains, and (E) and Interior 

Low Plateau—under six alternative scenarios (Wear and others 2013): 

moderate urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone A), moderate 

urbanization/decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone B), low urbanization/

increasing timber prices (Cornerstone C), low urbanization/decreasing 

timber prices (Cornerstone D), moderate urbanization/increasing timber 

prices/increased tree planting (Cornerstone E), and low urbanization/

decreasing timber prices/decreased tree planting (Cornerstone F).
54 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

Cornerstone A

Cornerstone B

Cornerstone C

Cornerstone D

Cornerstone E

Cornerstone F

Area (thousand acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (thousand acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (thousand acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (thousand acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Area (thousand acres)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

63

61

60

59

32

31

30

29

28

190

188

186

184

182

180

178

176

174

58

56

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

1125

1100

1075

1050

1025

1000

975

950

925

900

(A) Blue Ridge Mountains (B) Northern Ridge and Valley

(C) Southern Ridge and Valley (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains

(E) Interior Low Plateau

Figure 49—Forecasted change in lowland hardwood forest area for the 

five sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland—(A) Blue 

Ridge Mountains, (B) Northern Ridge and Valley, (C) Southern Ridge 

and Valley, (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains, and (E) and Interior 

Low Plateau—under six alternative scenarios (Wear and others 2013): 

moderate urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone A), moderate 

urbanization/decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone B), low urbanization/

increasing timber prices (Cornerstone C), low urbanization/decreasing 

timber prices (Cornerstone D), moderate urbanization/increasing timber 

prices/increased tree planting (Cornerstone E), and low urbanization/

decreasing timber prices/decreased tree planting (Cornerstone F).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 55

Growing Stock Projections

The importance of upland hardwoods on AppalachianCumberland landscapes is demonstrated by comparing 

hardwood growing stock volume (53.5 billion total cubic 

feet) to softwood growing stock volume (7.1 billion total 

cubic feet) under current (2010) and forecasted conditions 

(fig. 50).

Hardwood growing stock—Similar to the amount of 

hardwood forest area, levels of total hardwood growing stock 

are tied to urbanization-driven changes in land use. Hardwood 

growing stock at the end of the projection period (2060) is 

forecasted to exceed current levels under the three low-growth 

Cornerstone Futures (fig. 51): 0.8 percent (0.4 billion cubic 

feet) under Cornerstone C, 3.0 percent (1.6 billion cubic feet) 

under Cornerstone D, and 3.9 percent (2.1 billion cubic feet) 

under Cornerstone F. Notwithstanding these overall increases, 

a decrease is expected for the Blue Ridge Mountains section 

under all three Cornerstones, and for the Southern Ridge and 

Valley section under Cornerstone C (fig. 52).

Under Cornerstones A, B, and E hardwood growing stock 

would increase from 2010 to 2030 for all sections, followed 

by a precipitous decrease from 2030 to 2060 (fig. 51). Under 

the three high-growth Cornerstone Futures, total hardwood 

growing stock volume in 2060 is forecasted to decrease 

from 2010 levels: 2.6 percent (1.4 billion cubic feet) under 

Cornerstones A and E and 2.0 percent (1.1 billion cubic 

feet) for Cornerstone B, with the Blue Ridge Mountains 

section experiencing the largest proportional decrease 

under Cornerstones A and B and the Southern Ridge 

and Valley section experiencing the largest proportional 

decrease under Cornerstone E (fig. 52).

Volume (billion cubic feet)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Blue

Ridge

Mountains

Interior

Low

Plateau

Northern

Ridge and

Valley

Southern 

Ridge and

Valley

Cumberland

Plateau and

Mountains

Hardwood

Softwood

Figure 50—Hardwood and softwood growing stock volume, 2010, by U.S. 

Appalachian-Cumberland section.

Cornerstone A

Cornerstone B

Cornerstone C

Cornerstone D

Cornerstone E

Cornerstone F

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion cubic feet)

58

57

56

55

54

53

52

51

Figure 51—Forecasted change in hardwood growing stock, 2010 to 2060, 

in the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland under six alternative 

scenarios (Wear and others 2013): moderate urbanization/increasing timber 

prices (Cornerstone A), moderate urbanization/decreasing timber prices 

(Cornerstone B), low urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone 

C), low urbanization/decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone D), moderate 

urbanization/increasing timber prices/increased tree planting (Cornerstone 

E), and low urbanization/decreasing timber prices/decreased tree planting 

(Cornerstone F).
56 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

Cornerstone A

Cornerstone B

Cornerstone C

Cornerstone D

Cornerstone E

Cornerstone F

Volume (billion cubic feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion cubic feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion cubic feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion cubic feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion cubic feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

13.0

12.8

12.6

12.4

12.2

12.0

11.8

11.6

11.4

11.2

11.0

7.3

7.2

7.1

7.0

6.9

6.8

6.7

6.6

6.5

6.4

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

17.5

17.0

16.5

16.0

15.5

15.0

18.0

17.5

17.0

16.5

16.0

15.5

(A) Blue Ridge Mountains (B) Northern Ridge and Valley

(C) Southern Ridge and Valley (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains

(E) Interior Low Plateau

Figure 52—Forecasted change in hardwood growing stock, 2010 to 2060, 

for the five sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland—

(A) Blue Ridge Mountains, (B) Northern Ridge and Valley, (C) Southern 

Ridge and Valley, (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains, and (E) and 

Interior Low Plateau—under six alternative scenarios (Wear and others 

2013): moderate urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone A), 

moderate urbanization/decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone B), low 

urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone C), low urbanization/

decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone D), moderate urbanization/increasing 

timber prices/increased tree planting (Cornerstone E), and low urbanization/

decreasing timber prices/decreased tree planting (Cornerstone F).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 57

Softwood growing stock—By 2060, increases in total 

softwood growing stock volume over current (2010) levels 

(fig. 53) would range from 4.4 percent under Cornerstone 

B (high population and income growth with decreasing 

timber prices and baseline planting rates) to 14.2 percent 

under Cornerstone E (high population and income growth 

with increasing timber prices and increased planting rates). 

Under Cornerstones D and E, the volume would increase 

steadily. In contrast, under Cornerstones A and C, peaks 

in volume would be followed by precipitous decreases 

throughout the 50 year projection period, although the 2060 

volumes would still be larger than 2010 volumes. Under 

Cornerstone B, only the Blue Ridge Mountains section is 

forecasted to experience a decrease in softwood growing 

stock volume (17.8 percent); for other sections, increases 

would range from 11.1 percent in the Cumberland Plateau 

and Mountains section to 58.4 percent in the Southern 

Ridge and Valley section (fig. 54).

Cornerstone A

Cornerstone B

Cornerstone C

Cornerstone D

Cornerstone E

Cornerstone F

Volume (billion cubic feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

8.2

8.1

8.0

7.9

7.8

7.7

7.6

7.5

7.4

7.3

7.2

7.1

7.0

6.9

6.8

Figure 53—Forecasted change in softwood growing stock, 2010 to 2060, 

in the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland under six alternative 

scenarios (Wear and others 2013): moderate urbanization/increasing timber 

prices (Cornerstone A), moderate urbanization/decreasing timber prices 

(Cornerstone B), low urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone 

C), low urbanization/decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone D), moderate 

urbanization/increasing timber prices/increased tree planting (Cornerstone 

E), and low urbanization/decreasing timber prices/decreased tree planting 

(Cornerstone F).
58 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

Cornerstone A

Cornerstone B

Cornerstone C

Cornerstone D

Cornerstone E

Cornerstone F

Volume (billion cubic feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion cubic feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion cubic feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion cubic feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion cubic feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

(A) Blue Ridge Mountains (B) Northern Ridge and Valley

(C) Southern Ridge and Valley (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains

(E) Interior Low Plateau

Figure 54—Forecasted change in softwood growing stock, 2010 to 2060, 

for the five sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland—

(A) Blue Ridge Mountains, (B) Northern Ridge and Valley, (C) Southern 

Ridge and Valley, (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains, and (E) and 

Interior Low Plateau—under six alternative scenarios (Wear and others 

2013): moderate urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone A), 

moderate urbanization/decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone B), low 

urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone C), low urbanization/

decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone D), moderate urbanization/increasing 

timber prices/increased tree planting (Cornerstone E), and low urbanization/

decreasing timber prices/decreased tree planting (Cornerstone F).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 59

Sawtimber growing stock—Current sawtimber growing 

stock volume (2010) across the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland is about 181.9 billion board feet for hardwoods and 28.7 

billion board feet for softwoods (fig. 55). Under all Cornerstones, 

the amount of hardwood sawtimber growing stock in 2060 

is forecasted to exceed current (2010) levels. This increase, 

regardless of Cornerstone Future, likely reflects a continued 

shift in the age class distribution of many of the managed forest 

types towards older—and hence, for the most part—larger 

stands. The proportional increase in growing stock volume 

of hardwood sawtimber from 2010 to 2060 (fig. 56) would be 

largest under the low population and income growth projections 

(Cornerstones C, D, and F). Under Cornerstones D and F, the 

volume increase would be relatively steady. In contrast, under 

Cornerstones A, B, C, and E, strong increases occurring from 

2010 to 2030 would be followed by a precipitous decrease 

(albeit still larger than in 2010) from 2030 to 2060. Although 

volume is forecasted to increase, substantial variability among 

the sections is forecasted (fig. 57). For example, regardless of 

the Cornerstone Future, the Blue Ridge Mountains section is 

forecasted to experience a decrease in hardwood sawtimber 

growing stock volume under all Cornerstones, ranging from 

4 percent under Cornerstone C (1.7 billion board feet) to 6.7 

percent under Cornerstone E (2.9 billion board feet).

All Cornerstones with the exception of Cornerstone 

C are forecasted to result in an increase in the volume 

of softwood sawtimber from 2010 to 2060 (fig. 58). 

Under Cornerstones D, E, and F, the increase would be 

steady. Under Cornerstones A, B, and C, increases and 

decreases would occur rapidly throughout the 50-year 

projection period. If planting rates are held at baseline 

levels (excluding Cornerstones E and F), the largest 

increase—7.3 percent (2.1 billion board feet)—is expected 

under Cornerstone D. If planting rates increase, volume 

increases would range from 8.8 percent (2.5 billion board 

feet) under Cornerstone E to 5.0 percent (1.4 billion board 

feet) under Cornerstone F. Only the Blue Ridge Mountains 

and the Northern Ridge and Valley sections are forecasted 

to experience a loss in volume, with the Blue Ridge 

Mountains section losing volume under all Cornerstone 

Futures and the Northern Ridge and Valley section losing 

volume under Cornerstone A only (fig. 59). The Interior 

Low Plateau section is forecasted to experience the largest 

proportional increase under all Cornerstone Futures, 

ranging from 54.1 percent (0.8 billion board feet) under 

Cornerstone E to 98.9 percent (1.1 billion board feet) under 

Cornerstone F.

Hardwood

Softwood

Volume (billion board feet)

0

20

10

60

70

50

40

30

Blue

Ridge

Mountains

Interior

Low

Plateau

Northern

Ridge and

Valley

Southern 

Ridge and

Valley

Cumberland

Plateau and

Mountains

Figure 55—Hardwood and softwood sawtimber growing stock volume, 

2010, by U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland section.

Cornerstone A

Cornerstone B

Cornerstone C

Cornerstone D

Cornerstone E

Cornerstone F

Volume (billion board feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

205

200

195

190

185

180

Figure 56—Forecasted change in hardwood sawtimber growing stock, 

2010 to 2060, in the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland under six 

alternative scenarios (Wear and others 2013): moderate urbanization/

increasing timber prices (Cornerstone A), moderate urbanization/

decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone B), low urbanization/increasing 

timber prices (Cornerstone C), low urbanization/decreasing timber prices 

(Cornerstone D), moderate urbanization/increasing timber prices/increased 

tree planting (Cornerstone E), and low urbanization/decreasing timber 

prices/decreased tree planting (Cornerstone F).
60 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

Cornerstone A

Cornerstone B

Cornerstone C

Cornerstone D

Cornerstone E

Cornerstone F

Volume (billion board feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion board feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion board feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion board feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion board feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

22

23

24

25

26

27

9

10

11

12

13

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

(A) Blue Ridge Mountains (B) Northern Ridge and Valley

(C) Southern Ridge and Valley (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains

(E) Interior Low Plateau

Figure 57—Forecasted change in hardwood sawtimber growing stock 

volume, 2010 to 2060, for the five sections of the U.S. AppalachianCumberland highland—(A) Blue Ridge Mountains, (B) Northern Ridge 

and Valley, (C) Southern Ridge and Valley, (D) Cumberland Plateau and 

Mountains, and (E) and Interior Low Plateau—under six alternative 

scenarios (Wear and others 2013): moderate urbanization/increasing timber 

prices (Cornerstone A), moderate urbanization/decreasing timber prices 

(Cornerstone B), low urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone 

C), low urbanization/decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone D), moderate 

urbanization/increasing timber prices/increased tree planting (Cornerstone 

E), and low urbanization/decreasing timber prices/decreased tree planting 

(Cornerstone F).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 61

Cornerstone A

Cornerstone B

Cornerstone C

Cornerstone D

Cornerstone E

Cornerstone F

Volume (billion board feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

32

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

Figure 58—Forecasted change in softwood sawtimber growing stock 

volume, 2010 to 2060, in the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland under 

six alternative scenarios (Wear and others 2013): moderate urbanization/

increasing timber prices (Cornerstone A), moderate urbanization/

decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone B), low urbanization/increasing 

timber prices (Cornerstone C), low urbanization/decreasing timber prices 

(Cornerstone D), moderate urbanization/increasing timber prices/increased 

tree planting (Cornerstone E), and low urbanization/decreasing timber 

prices/decreased tree planting (Cornerstone F).
62 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

Cornerstone A

Cornerstone B

Cornerstone C

Cornerstone D

Cornerstone E

Cornerstone F

(A) Blue Ridge Mountains (B) Northern Ridge and Valley

(C) Southern Ridge and Valley (D) Cumberland Plateau and Mountains

(E) Interior Low Plateau

Volume (billion board feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion board feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion board feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion board feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Volume (billion board feet)

Year

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

15.0

14.5

14.0

13.5

13.0

12.5

12.0

11.5

11.0

10.5

10.0

6.0

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2

5.0

4.8

4.6

4.4

4.2

5.6

5.4

5.2

5.0

4.8

4.6

4.4

4.2

4.0

3.8

3.6

5.8

5.6

5.4

5.2

5.0

4.8

4.6

4.4

4.2

4.0

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

Figure 59—Forecasted change in softwood sawtimber growing stock 

volume, 2010 to 2060, for the five sections of the U.S. AppalachianCumberland highland—(A) Blue Ridge Mountains, (B) Northern Ridge 

and Valley, (C) Southern Ridge and Valley, (D) Cumberland Plateau and 

Mountains, and (E) and Interior Low Plateau—under six alternative 

scenarios (Wear and others 2013): moderate urbanization/increasing timber 

prices (Cornerstone A), moderate urbanization/decreasing timber prices 

(Cornerstone B), low urbanization/increasing timber prices (Cornerstone 

C), low urbanization/decreasing timber prices (Cornerstone D), moderate 

urbanization/increasing timber prices/increased tree planting (Cornerstone 

E), and low urbanization/decreasing timber prices/decreased tree planting 

(Cornerstone F).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 63

Summary

Largely because of urbanization-driven changes in land 

use, total forest cover is forecasted to decrease across the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland from 2010 to 2060 (fig. 

42) along with the largest component—upland hardwoods—

regardless of Cornerstone Future. The amount of the upland 

hardwoods decrease, however, varies greatly by both 

Cornerstone Future and Appalachian-Cumberland section. 

Despite the loss of upland hardwood area, the portion of upland 

hardwood forests classified as oak-hickory would remain fairly 

constant over the 50-year projection period. This is important 

because of the widespread ecological and economic significance 

of oak-hickory forests in Appalachian-Cumberland highland.

The area classified as natural pine is expected to decrease over 

the 50-year projection period (figs. 44 and 46), while the area 

classified as planted pine is forecasted to increase (figs. 44 and 

48). Because losses of upland-hardwood area are driven by 

future rates of urbanization, the projected increase in planted 

pine area appears to be driven, in part, by the conversion of 

natural pine or oak-pine (or both) to pine plantations.

Hardwoods comprise the largest proportion of the current 

(2010) total hardwood growing stock. Although total 

hardwood growing stock could decrease by an average of 2.4 

percent under Cornerstone Futures A, B, and E, hardwoods 

will continue to comprise the largest proportion of the total 

growing stock (figs. 51 and 52). Although not a substantial 

contribution to total growing stock, the softwood component 

is forecasted to be, on average, 7.4 percent larger by 2060—

attributable, in part, to the slight increase in planted-pine area.

The forecasted loss of area in upland hardwoods is largely 

driven by urbanization-driven changes in land use under the 

Cornerstone Futures, with the largest losses occurring near 

larger urban areas (such as Asheville, NC; Knoxville, TN; 

Nashville, TN; and Lexington, KY). In general, age structure 

of upland hardwoods will likely continue to be dominated by 

the older (≥80 years) classes.

For a broader discussion of forest conditions in the South, see 

Huggett and others (2013).

Wildlife and Forest Communities

The Southern United States has a high level of plant and 

animal diversity, largely the result of strong edaphoclimatic 

and topographic gradients as well as variation in natural 

disturbance regimes characteristic of the region. Although 

one of the smaller subregions in the South, the AppalachianCumberland highland also contains a highly diverse suite 

of plant and animal communities, including many endemic 

species that are dependent on its specific physical, climatic, 

or biological attributes. This diversity is threatened by 

the changes in land use and associated patterns of habitat 

fragmentation caused primarily by parcelization of private 

forests and climate change that are forecasted to occur under 

the Cornerstone Futures.

The Appalachian-Cumberland highland contains 484 

native terrestrial vertebrates in 77 distinct ecosystems. This 

includes 90 amphibians (of which 60 are salamanders), 257 

birds, 77 mammal, and 60 reptiles (table 10).

Table 10—Vertebrate species richness in the five sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland 

Amphibians Birds Mammals Reptiles

Section

Frogs and toadsSalamandersPerching birds

Raptors

ShorebirdsWading birdsWaterfowlOther birdsBatsCarnivoresRodentsOther mammalsLizardsSnakesTurtles

---------------------------------------------Number of species---------------------------------------------

Blue Ridge Mountains 17 54 132 13 17 11 21 42 16 11 26 18 9 26 13

Northern Ridge and Valley 16 41 130 14 17 7 24 42 11 12 23 16 7 24 13

Southern Ridge and Valley 15 41 130 12 16 8 20 43 14 11 26 16 9 21 11

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains 20 35 135 14 17 11 22 43 16 11 25 15 9 24 12

Interior Low Plateau 25 32 139 15 16 11 24 45 16 12 23 16 9 29 15

Sources: NatureServe (2011); Trani Griep and Collins (2013).
64 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

A number of species are considered to be of conservation 

concern, defined as a global status rank of critically 

imperiled, imperiled, or vulnerable (NatureServe 2012). 

These species are increasingly threatened by habitat 

alteration, isolation, introduction of invasive species, 

environmental pollutants, commercial development, 

human disturbance, and exploitation. Vertebrate species 

of conservation concern in each of the five AppalachianCumberland sections are listed in table 11. Of them, 

four—the Blue Ridge Mountains, Southern Ridge and 

Valley, Cumberland Plateau and Mountains, and Interior 

Low Plateau sections—are areas of emerging concern for 

conservation.

The Blue Ridge Mountains section supports a noteworthy 

54 species of salamanders, 18 of which are imperiled or 

vulnerable (table 11), and the Northern and Southern Ridge 

and Valley sections support 41. Threats to salamanders in 

Table 11—Vertebrate species of global conservation concern in the five sections of the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland: Blue Ridge Mountains, Northern Ridge and Valley, Southern Ridge and Valley, Cumberland Plateau and 

Mountains, and Interior Low Plateau

Taxonomic group Species name Section Status

Frogs and toads Carolina gopher frog (Lithobates capito) Low Plateau V

Salamanders Berry Cave salamander (Gyrinophilus gulolineatus) Southern Ridge CI

Blue Ridge gray-cheeked salamander (Plethodon amplus) Blue Ridge CI

South Mountain gray-cheeked salamander 

(Plethodon meridianus)

Blue Ridge CI

Shenandoah salamander (Plethodon shenandoah) Northern Ridge CI

Cumberland dusky salamander (Desmognathus abditus) Cumberlands I

Dwarf black-bellied salamander (Desmognathus folkertsi) Blue Ridge I

Tennessee cave salamander (Gyrinophilus palleucus) Southern Ridge, 

Cumberlands, Low Plateau

I

Tellico salamander (Plethodon aureoles) Blue Ridge I

Cheoah Bald salamander (Plethodon cheoah) Blue Ridge I

Peaks of Otter salamander (Plethodon hubrichti) Northern Ridge I

Red-legged salamander (Plethodon shermani) Blue Ridge I

Shenandoah Mountain salamander (Plethodon Virginia) Northern Ridge I

Green salamander (Aneides aeneus) Blue Ridge, Southern Ridge, 

Cumberlands, Low Plateau

V

Hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) All V

Seepage salamander (Desmognathus aeneus) Blue Ridge, Southern Ridge V

Imitator salamander (Desmognathus imitator) Blue Ridge V

Santeetlah dusky salamander (Desmognathus santeetlah) Blue Ridge V

Pygmy salamander (Desmognathus wrighti) Blue Ridge, Northern Ridge, 

Southern Ridge

V

Junaluska salamander (Eurycea junaluska) Blue Ridge V

CI = critically imperiled; I = imperiled; V = vulnerable.

Source: NatureServe (2011).

(Continued)
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 65

these sections include forest fragmentation associated with 

land use change and residential development because loss 

of habitat connectivity would make migration in response 

to a changing climate and disturbances difficult.

Numbers of imperiled mammals are particularly high in 

the Interior Low Plateau section, Cumberland Plateau and 

Mountains section, Southern Ridge and Valley section, 

and North Carolina portion of the Blue Ridge Mountains 

section. Mammals of particular interest and of conservation 

concern include the eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii), 

Carolina northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus 

coloratus), Virginia northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys 

sabrinus fuscus), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), and Virginia 

big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii virginianus). These 

species are sensitive to habitat fragmentation (which causes 

population isolation) and land-use conversion resulting 

from urbanization and residential development. Bat 

Table 11 (continued)—Vertebrate species of global conservation concern in the five sections of the U.S. AppalachianCumberland highland: Blue Ridge Mountains, Northern Ridge and Valley, Southern Ridge and Valley, Cumberland 

Plateau and Mountains, and Interior Low Plateau

Taxonomic group Species name Section Status

Salamanders Red-cheeked salamander (Plethodon jordani) Blue Ridge V

Southern gray-cheeked salamander (Plethodon metcalfi) Blue Ridge V

Northern gray-cheeked salamander (Plethodon montanus) Blue Ridge V

White-spotted salamander (Plethodon punctatus) Northern Ridge V

Southern Appalachian salamander (Plethodon teyahalee) Blue Ridge V

Weller’s salamander (Plethodon welleri) Blue Ridge, Northern Ridge V

Birds Bachman’s sparrow (Peucaea aestivalis) Southern Ridge, 

Cumberlands, Low Plateau

V

Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Southern Ridge, 

Cumberlands, Low Plateau

V

Bats Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) All I

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) Blue Ridge, Southern Ridge, 

Cumberlands, Low Plateau

V

Southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius) Blue Ridge, Low Plateau V

Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) Blue Ridge, Northern 

Ridge, Southern Ridge, 

Cumberlands

V

Eastern small-footed bat (Myotis leibii) Blue Ridge, Northern Ridge, 

Low Plateau

V

Rodents Allegheny woodrat (Neotoma magister) Blue Ridge, Northern 

Ridge, Southern Ridge, 

Cumberlands

V

Snakes Kirtland’s snake (Clonophis kirtlandii) Low Plateau I

Turtles Bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) Blue Ridge V

Alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminickii) Low Plateau V

CI = critically imperiled; I = imperiled; V = vulnerable.

Source: NatureServe (2011).
66 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

populations face additional pressures from disturbance to 

hibernation and maternity colonies.

An emerging issue that is and will continue to affect wildlife 

communities is white-nose syndrome, an infectious disease 

that affects bats hibernating in cold caves and mines during 

winter. The disease is caused by a cold-loving fungus, 

Geomyces destructans (Lorch and others 2011) that may have 

been brought to North America from Europe. The disease 

causes the bats to alter their hibernation cycles in ways that 

quickly burn through their winter fat reserves. It also causes 

extensive damage to the bats’ wings, which can affect many 

other physiological processes such as water balance and 

ability to fly (Cryan and others 2010). White-nose syndrome 

is currently found in 19 U.S. States—including Kentucky, 

Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Alabama—and 

four Canadian Provinces. In the Northeastern United States, 

little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) decreased by 91 percent, 

Indiana bats decreased by 72 percent, northern long-eared 

bats (Myotis septentrionalis) decreased by 98 percent, and 

tri-colored bats (Perimyotis subflavus) decreased by 75 

percent from 2006 to 2011 (Turner and others 2011)—for an 

estimated loss of 5.5 to 6.5 million bats. Although difficult to 

quantify, the loss of so many predators will likely affect the 

abundance and composition of night-flying arthropods, many 

of which can impact forestry and agricultural interests.

The Appalachian-Cumberland highland is second in the 

South in the number of Federally listed vascular plant species 

(37), with an additional 172 considered species of concern. 

Most of the threatened and endangered plant species are 

endemic to rare community types, including bog habitats 

and rocky, mountain outcrops (table 12). Because the habitat 

associated with many of these species is limited, special 

management actions may be required to maintain existing 

populations (including reintroduction of fire).

Early successional habitats, defined as forest habitats in the 

≤10 year age class, are of importance to a variety of species. 

Under Cornerstone A (moderate urbanization and increasing 

timber prices), the largest losses in early successional habitats 

are expected in the Northern Ridge and Valley section, with 

scattered losses occurring in the Blue Ridge Mountains and 

northern Interior Low Plateau sections. The loss of early 

successional habitats in these sections could affect species 

of management concern, including the American woodcock 

(Scolopax minor), blue-winged warbler (Vermivora pinus), 

chestnut-sided warbler (Dendroica pennsylvanica), goldenwinged warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), ruffed grouse 

(Bonasa umbellus), and veery (Catharus fuscescens). Under 

Cornerstone A, the eastern Tennessee portion of the Southern 

Ridge and Valley section and the Cumberland Plateau and 

Mountains section are forecasted to gain early successional 

habitats. Although benefitting some species, an increase in the 

amount of early successional habitats, coupled with a reduction 

in the amount of mature forest, could threaten plants and 

animals associated with interior forest conditions.

High elevation forests such as red spruce, Fraser fir, eastern 

hemlock, and northern hardwood forests occur >4,000 feet 

in the northern Blue Ridge Mountains section (central and 

northern Virginia) and the southern Blue Ridge Mountains 

section (eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, and 

limited areas of northern Georgia). These forests are 

subject to chronic air pollution, acid deposition, and natural 

disturbances (such as hurricane-related wind disturbances 

and ice storms). Although climate change could impact 

these ecosystems by decreasing the winter cold period 

required for seed germination of select species, pressure 

from urbanization, wildfires and other natural disturbances, 

recreation and other human disturbances, and loss of forest 

connectivity are immediate threats to the health of these high 

elevation ecosystems.

Overall, urbanization-driven changes in land use coupled 

with projected decreases in forest acreage and loss of 

forest connectivity near metropolitan areas—such as the 

metropolitan areas of Nashville (Interior Low Plateau section) 

and Knoxville (Cumberland Plateau and Mountains section) in 

Tennessee, and Asheville (Blue Ridge Mountains section) in 

North Carolina—could threaten the diversity and abundance of 

bats, salamanders, and concentrations of sensitive plant species; 

and could increase habitat fragmentation, making migration 

in response to climate and disturbances difficult. Recreational 

use, which is expected to increase concomitant with increased 

urbanization under the Cornerstone Futures, could add 

additional pressure on rare and endemic communities.

Summary

The Appalachian-Cumberland highland hosts a highly 

diverse suite of plant and animal communities. Of its 484 

native terrestrial vertebrates, numerous species are of 

conservation concern (table 11). Changes in land use, coupled 

with increases in habitat fragmentation caused primarily by 

parcelization of private land, would have large impacts on the 

biodiversity and health of its wildlife and plant communities. 

The effects of habitat fragmentation would be most 

noticeable in and around metropolitan areas that include 

Nashville, TN, Knoxville, TN, and Asheville, NC.

Many plant and animal species benefit from early 

successional habitat. A loss of these habitats is forecasted 

to occur over the 50-year projection period, with the 

largest losses occurring under a moderate urbanization 

and increasing timber price projection (Cornerstone A). 

Notwithstanding, parts of the Southern Ridge and Valley 

section and the Cumberland Plateau and Mountains sections 

could actually experience gains in the amount of area 

classified as early successional habitat under Cornerstone A. 
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 67

Table 12—Endangered and threatened plant species and associated habitats in the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland

Endangered species

Name Primary habitat

Braun’s rockcress (Arabis perstellata) Mesic, shady, steep, north-facing wooded slopes

Bunched arrowhead (Sagittaria fasciculata) Streamsides, swamp-forest bogs

Cumberland sandwort (Minuartia cumberlandensis) Cool, humid, cave-like overhangs

Green pitcherplant (Sarracenia oreophila) Bogs

Leafy prairie-clover (Dalea foliosa) Barrens, grasslands/other herbaceous areas

Morefield’s leatherflower (Clematis morefieldii) Open cedar-hardwood forests; seeps and ephemeral limestone streams 

(rocky woodlands)

Northeastern bulrush (Scirpus ancistrochaetus) Bogs

Persistent trillium (Trillium persistens) Mixed hemlock-pine-hardwood forests; steep slopes, streamsides 

Peters Mountain mallow (Iliamna corei) Exposed sandstone outcrops 

Pyne’s ground-plum (Astragalus bibullatus) Limestone cedar glades 

Reflexed blue-eyed-grass (Sisyrinchium 

dichotomum)

Rocky oak-hickory slopes

Running buffalo clover (Trifolium stoloniferum) Mesic woodlands

Ruth’s silk-grass (Pityopsis ruthii) Streamsides, rock crevices

Shalebarren rockcress (Arabis serotina) Rocky oak-hickory slopes

Short’s goldenrod (Solidago shortii) Natural openings in dry oak-hickory stands, cedar glades, glade-like areas

Smooth purple coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) Bare rock/talus/scree, cliffs, forests/woodlands, grasslands/other 

herbaceous areas

Spreading avens (Geum radiatum) Montane rock outcrops

Spring Creek bladderpod (Lesquerella perforata) Bare rock/talus/scree, croplands/hedgerows, old fields

Sweet pitcherplant (Sarracenia rubra spp.) Bogs/fens

Tennessee yellow-eyed-grass (Xyris tennesseensis) Forested or herbaceous wetlands, riparian areas

Venus’ pride (Houstonia purpurea var. montana) Montane rock outcrops

Threatened species

Name Primary habitat

Blue Ridge goldenrod (Solidago spithamaea) Montane peaks, cliffs, talus slopes

Cumberland false rosemary (Conradina verticillata) Only boulder/cobble/gravel-bars, river-gorge flood plains 

Dwarf-flower heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) Rich deciduous woods, bluffs

Eastern prairie white-fringed orchid 

 (Platanthera leucophaea)

Mesic to wet prairies, wet sedge meadows, sedge-sphagnum bog mats

Hart’s-tongue fern (Asplenium scolopendrium) Mesic hardwood forests, sinkholes

Heller’s blazingstar (Liatris helleri) Montane rock outcrops, grassy balds

Large-flower skullcap (Scutellaria montana) Rocky shallow soils; submesic-to-xeric, well-drained, slightly acidic oak-pine 

forests

Lyrate bladderpod (Lesquerella lyrata) Barrens, croplands/hedgerows, grasslands/other herbaceous 

Mountain golden-heather (Hudsonia montana) Oak/heath forests

Price’s potato-bean (Apios priceana) Open, rocky, wooded slopes; floodplain edges

Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) White pine or mesic oak-hickory forests

Swamp-pink (Helonias bullata) Forest-bog complexes

Virginia roundleaf birch (Betula uber) Forested wetlands, riparian areas

Virginia sneezeweed (Helenium virginicum) Small areas around sinkholes

Virginia spiraea (Spiraea virginiana) Riverside scour zones

White-haired goldenrod (Solidago albopilosa) Shallow, sandstone, cave-like structures

Source: NatureServe (2012).
68 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

The loss of early successional habitats will likely affect many 

species of management concern, while an increase in early 

successional habitat would pose threats to plants and animals 

associated with interior forest conditions (older age classes).

Habitat fragmentation and loss of habitat connectivity would 

inhibit species migration in response to climate change. The 

potential effects of climate change on high-elevation forest 

habitats in the Blue Ridge Mountains and Northern Ridge 

and Valley sections are of particular concern. These highelevation systems will likely experience pressures related to 

urbanization and habitat fragmentation, as well as increased 

temperatures and an increase in the frequency of natural 

disturbances (perhaps associated with climate change).

For a broader discussion of wildlife and at-risk forest 

communities, see Trani Griep and Collins (2013).

Water and Forests

Of the three broad land use categories in the South—forestry, 

agriculture, and urban—forests provide the cleanest and 

most stable supply of water, the source of drinking water, 

recreational opportunities, and power generation for millions 

of people as well as critical aquatic habitat for a variety of 

wildlife species. Although population growth and associated 

alterations in land use (loss of forest land and increase in 

urbanization) will likely be the primary drivers of changes in 

water quantity and quality across the South, climate change 

could exacerbate these changes and directly and indirectly 

affect water resources.

Land Use Changes and Water Resources

In the Appalachian-Cumberland highland, the movement of 

water largely follows hydrologic flowpaths that are primarily 

driven by elevation gradients. As urbanization increases, 

as predicted under the four primary Cornerstone Futures 

(chapter 2), the proportion of impervious land area can also 

be expected to increase. In contrast to urban watersheds, 

forested watersheds yield less total water. However, forested 

watersheds usually have a higher percentage of water available 

for human use than urban watersheds; therefore an increase 

in urbanization usually translates into less water for human 

consumption. In addition, an increase in impervious surface 

are can result in more stream sediment; higher concentrations 

of nutrients, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals (Clinton and 

Vose 2006, Lenat and Crawford 1994, Paul and Meyer 

2001, Schoonover and others 2005); and the potential for 

urbanization-associated erosion (depending on topography).

Water Resources and Climate Change

As measured by the water supply stress index or WaSSI 

(Lockaby and others 2013) from 1995 to 2005 (baseline 

conditions), water stress in the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland was low (<0.40), with higher levels associated 

with population centers (fig. 60). Although the changes in 

water stress resulting from land use by 2050 are predicted 

to be negligible (fig. 61), the effects of population change 

are predicted to increase water stress substantially, with 

the largest proportional increase in and around the major 

population centers (fig. 61). Although water stress may be 

most visible around population centers, rural communities 

could well experience increased stress because groundwater 

is the primary source of potable water in rural areas (Fox 

and others 2011). Consequently, as development proceeds 

and urban centers expand, smaller municipalities and rural 

communities dependent on well water could experience the 

combined effects of climate change and population increases 

on groundwater supply. Although all Cornerstone Futures 

forecast an increase in air temperature in the AppalachianCumberland highland, their forecasted precipitation patterns 

have a high degree of uncertainty and variability. Depending 

on the scenario, by 2050 water supply stress will increase in 

some areas of the subregion, while other areas will experience 

a decrease or no change in water supply stress (fig. 62).

Consequences

Land use change will likely have the most impact on 

future water quality and quantity across the AppalachianCumberland highland. In general, conversion of forest land 

to other uses, which is forecasted under all the Cornerstone 

Futures, is dominated by the conversion to urban land. 

Precipitation patterns are the primary drivers of peak 

flow, turbidity, and flooding (Caldwell and others 2012); 

however, loss of forest land coupled with an increase in 

urban land uses will likely exacerbate discharge rates, 

peak flow, and velocity of streams (Sun and Lockaby 

2012). The Appalachian-Cumberland highland, with its 

varied topography, will likely experience some of the most 

substantial effects of urbanization on hydrological responses, 

including peak flows and stream hydrographs (Grimm and 

others 2004). In addition, conversion away from forest 

land uses results in higher velocity and channel scouring, 

which create unstable habitat for aquatic species. In the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland, and in the Appalachian 

Mountains, in particular, the negative impacts of forest loss 

on aquatic habitat are most severe. Species richness and 

abundance generally decline with the loss of forest land, 

leading to site-specific loss of species groups.
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 69

< 0.11

0.12 to 0.20

0.21 to 0.40

0.41 to 0.60

0.61 to 0.80

0.81 to 1.00

>1.00

WaSSI

(A) Land use change (B) Population change

<-20

-20 to -10

-10 to 10

10 to 100

100 to 200

>200

Change in WaSSI 

(percent)

Figure 60—Water supply stress index, 1995 to 2005, for the U.S. 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland; water stress is defined by the Water 

Supply Stress Index (WaSSI) and calculated by dividing water supply into 

water demand.

Figure 61—Predicted change in water stress, 2050, for the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland that is attributable to (A) land use change or (B) 

population change; water stress is defined by the Water Supply Stress Index (WaSSI) and calculated by dividing water supply into water demand.
70 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

(A) MIROC3.2+A1B (B) CSIROMK3.5+A1B

(C) CSIROMK2+B2 (D) HadCM3+B2 

<-20

-20 to -10

-10 to 10

10 to 100

100 to 200

>200

Change in WaSSI (percent)

Figure 62—Predicted change in water stress, 2050, for the U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland under Cornerstone Futures A through D; water stress is 

defined by the Water Supply Stress Index (WaSSI) and calculated by dividing water supply into water demand; each of the Cornerstone Futures represents 

a general circulation model—MIROC3.2, CSIROMK3.5, CSIROMK2, or HadCM3—paired with one of two emission scenarios—A1B representing 

low-population/high-economic growth, high energy use; B2 representing moderate growth and use: (A) MIROC3.2+A1B, (B) CSIROMK3.5+A1B, (C) 

CSIROMK2+B2, and (D) HadCM3+B2 (McNulty and others 2013).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 71

Independent of climate, the change from forest to urban 

land uses coupled with increases in population would 

increase water supply stress (based model results) across the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland. Because water stress 

is sensitive to population changes, the largest proportional 

increase in water stress is expected to occur where urban 

land uses and rates of urbanization and population growth 

are forecasted to be highest (fig. 61). Although increased 

temperatures are forecasted under all four Cornerstone 

Futures, model consensus on the forecasted patterns of 

precipitation is low. In general, stream flows and water 

supply will likely decrease and become more variable over 

the next 50 years, with an increase in the water supply stress 

forecasted to be between 10 and 100 percent for most of the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland (fig. 62).

Impervious land area increases of ≤5 percent can affect water 

quality, with significant degradation occurring at increases 

of 10 to 20 percent (Arnold and Gibbons 1996, Bledsoe and 

Watson 2001), and severe deterioration occurring at increases 

>30 percent (Calhoun and others 2003, Paul and Meyer 

2001). Where urbanization is forecasted to be substantial—

which in the Appalachian-Cumberland highland includes 

areas in and around Nashville, TN, Asheville, NC, and 

Lexington, KY—key bioindicators of water quality 

degradation will require monitoring. An increase in urban 

areas is forecasted under all Cornerstone Futures, thereby 

increasing the need for measures to decrease or mitigate the 

negative effects on water quality and quantity, including an 

increased emphasis on the retention of green space in urban 

areas and conservation programs.

For a broader discussion of water and forests, see Lockaby 

and others (2013).

Outdoor Recreation

Larger numbers of individuals, families, and other 

households in all likelihood will translate directly into higher 

demand for outdoor recreation venues, but at the same time 

create more pressures on remaining natural lands. As land 

and water resources in rural areas are increasingly pressured 

by expanding urban and other development, private land and 

water could become less available for outdoor recreation for 

some segments of the population.

Current Trends

From 2000 to 2008, the number of people ages ≥16 who 

participated in one or more of 60 outdoor activities (not 

necessarily forest dependent) increased by 7.3 percent in the 

United States—and even higher in the South, with 

participants increasing about 11 percent, from 68 million 

to 75 million. The South had a higher rate of participation 

in hunting and fishing activities (38.8 percent) than in other 

regions of the United States (table 13), and had the second 

highest participation rate in motorized activities with 37.1 

percent participating. The two activities with the highest 

participation rates are visiting recreation and historic sites 

(78.9 percent) and viewing/photographing nature (73.2 

percent); for these activities, participation rates were even 

higher in other regions.

Federal, State, and local governments offer millions of acres 

of land for public recreation use. Federal agencies manage 

nearly 640 million acres in the United States and 30.5 million 

acres in the South, about 44 percent of which is managed by 

the USDA Forest Service. For all Federally managed land, 

the number of Federal acres per 1,000 people decreased 

by 15.4 percent from 1995 to 2008. Because the amount of 

Federal acreage remained relatively stable, the decrease was 

primarily attributable to an increase in population. During 

the same period, the acreage under the State park system per 

1,000 people grew by more 8.8 percent.

Most counties in the South have from 0.07 to 1.46 acres of 

public land per person, increasing to 18.31 in the Virginia 

mountains. Federal or State park land is <0.3 acres per person. 

By 2060, availability is projected to decrease to 0.17 acres.

Non-Federal forest area is expected to change with 

continuing conversions from forests and farmlands to cities 

and suburbs. More than 30 percent of the total land area 

is non-Federal forest, or 1.66 acres per person. Per capita 

non-Federal forest is predicted to decrease to 0.95 acres per 

person by 2060.

Projections 2010 to 2060

For the South as a whole, recreation participation is 

expected to increase. The amount of growth will likely be 

variable, depending on the specific recreation activity and 

the amount of population growth. To develop projections 

for the 50-year period, three population growth storylines 

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007) were 

evaluated for 10 popular outdoor recreation activities. The 

storylines incorporated into the recreation projections were 

A1B (medium population growth and the highest household 

income), A2 (highest level of population growth and lowest 

household income), and B2 (lowest population growth and 

moderate household income). Based on the forecasts of 

land use change from Wear (2013), forest land per capita 

from 2008 to 2060 is expected to decrease about 45 percent 

under A1B, 50 percent under A2, and about 37 percent 

under B2.
72 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

Table 13—Participants for seven activity groups, 2005 to 2009, in the four regions of the United States 

Activity group Region

Percent of 

participantsa

Percent of 

populationa

Percent 

participating

Visiting recreation and historic sites

(Family gatherings, picnicking, visiting the beach, 

visiting historic or prehistoric sites, and camping)

North 42.0 40.7 82.7

South 29.7 31.4 78.9

Rocky Mountains 10.1 10.1 81.9

Pacific Coast 18.2 17.8 81.4

Viewing/photographing nature 

(View/photograph birds, natural scenery, other 

wildlife besides birds, and wildflowers, trees, and 

other plants)

North 40.8 40.7 75.6

South 30.7 31.4 73.2

Rocky Mountains 10.5 10.1 78.1

Pacific Coast 17.9 17.8 75.8

Backcountry activities

(Backpacking, day hiking, horseback riding on trails, 

mountain climbing, and visiting a wilderness or 

primitive area)

North 40.1 40.7 43.1

South 26.0 31.4 37.4

Rocky Mountains 13.0 10.1 57.4

Pacific Coast 20.9 17.8 51.4

Motorized activities 

(Motorboating, off-highway vehicle driving, 

snowmobiling, using personal watercraft, and 

waterskiing)

North 40.8 40.7 36.4

South 31.1 31.4 37.1

Rocky Mountains 10.7 10.1 39.1

Pacific Coast 17.4 17.8 35.6

Hunting and fishing

(Anadromous fishing, coldwater fishing, warmwater 

fishing, saltwater fishing, big game hunting, small 

game hunting, and migratory bird hunting)

North 38.6 40.7 32.4

South 35.5 31.4 38.8

Rocky Mountains 10.9 10.1 37.1

Pacific Coast 15.0 17.8 28.8

Non-motorized boating

(Canoeing, kayaking, rafting, rowing, and sailing)

North 45.6 40.7 23.0

South 27.5 31.4 18.0

Rocky Mountains 9.2 10.1 18.7

Pacific Coast 17.7 17.8 20.4

Snow skiing and boarding

(Cross country skiing, downhill skiing, and 

snowboarding)

North 49.6 40.7 14.0

South 14.5 31.4 5.5

Rocky Mountains 12.6 10.1 14.7

Pacific Coast 23.3 17.8 15.1

aPercentages sum down to 100 within the four regions of each activity group.

Sources: USDA Forest Service (2009); Cordell and others (2013).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 73

Developed site use—The most popular of the land-based 

activities in the South, developed site use includes family 

gatherings, picnicking, and developed camping. On 

average from 2005 to 2009, 80 percent of southern adults 

participated in developed site use activities (table 14). Per 

capita participation growth is expected to be relatively static 

over the next 50 years. Nevertheless, the overall number of 

participants will grow by the rate at which the population 

increases for each storyline.

Backcountry activities—Hiking is the most popular single 

land based backcountry activity (table 14); participation per 

capita is expected to increase by 12 to 15 percent by 2060. Per 

capita participation in horseback riding on trails is projected 

to decrease by 5 to 9 percent under the B2 and A2 storylines 

and to increase by 9 percent under the A1B storyline, primarily 

because of higher income growth. Expected increases in 

population over the 50-year horizon would result in an overall 

increase in participation. For motorized off-road driving, 

participation rates are projected to decrease by about 8 percent 

across all storylines, resulting in participant numbers growing 

less than the population growth rate.

Visiting primitive areas includes backpacking, primitive 

camping, and visiting a wilderness—either designated 

or undesignated. Annual per capita participation in these 

activities is expected to decrease by ≤7 percent in the next 

50 years. However, by 2060 overall participation is expected 

to increase by 43 to 76 percent across the three storylines 

because population growth would offset the decrease in 

participation rates.

Boating—Two water-based activity aggregates—motorized 

and nonmotorized (table 14)—were examined by Bowker 

and others (2013). By 2060, participation rates for motorized 

use—which includes motor boating, waterskiing, and 

personal watercraft use—are projected to increase by 10 

percent under storyline A1B and decrease by ≤5 percent 

under storylines A2 and B2. This difference can be attributed 

to A1B’s higher growth rate for household income. Annual 

days of motorized water use are expected to grow from 2008 

levels by 38 to 86 percent, depending on which storyline 

proves to be most accurate.

Nonmotorized water use aggregate includes canoeing, 

kayaking, and rafting. Despite rapid growth over the past 

decade, per capita adult participation is projected to be stable 

out to 2060, resulting in participant numbers growing at the 

same rate at the population, or 45 to 81 percent.

Wildlife-based activities—Wildlife activities assessed 

by Bowker and others (2013) include birding, fishing, and 

hunting (table 14). By far, birding has the highest number of 

annual days per participant in the South—likely reflective 

of the many levels or intensities of participant engagement, 

from watching feeders to pursuing sightings in remote 

forests. Per capita participation in birding is projected to 

increase 7 to 10 percent over the next 50 years under all 

three storylines, meaning that birder numbers will increase 

faster than the adult population at large. Because days per 

participant are expected to decrease by 9 to 13 percent, the 

total number of days of birding would increase marginally 

less than the population.

Table 14—Outdoor recreation activity by southern adults ≥16 years, 2008, by number of participants and days of 

participations 

Activity type Activity 

Participation 

rate 

(percent)

Participants 

(millions)

Days of 

participation 

(millions)

Land based

Developed site use (family gathering, picnicking, developed camping) 79.9 63.2 672

Horseback riding on trails 7.1 5.7 99

Day hiking 25.2 20.3 463

Primitive (visiting a wilderness, primitive camping/backpacking) 35.3 16.9 562

Motorized off-road 21.3 28.2 412

Water based Motorized water (motor boating, water skiing, personal water craft) 27.0 21.3 384

Non-motorized (canoeing, kayaking, rafting) 15.4 12.2 80

Wildlife 

based

Birding (viewing or photographing) 34.2 27.0 2,862

Fishing 35.7 28.0 573

Hunting 13.7 10.8 230

Sources: USDA Forest Service (2009); Bowker and others (2013).
74 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

Fishing has the second highest participation rate for 

southerners among the activities examined by Bowker 

and others (2013). In the past decade, fishing participants 

increased by >20 percent. Under the storylines, the 

fishing participation rate is expected to decrease by 10 

to 18 percent. Therefore, the number of days of fishing 

is expected to grow slower than the population, or 30 to 

51 percent. Fishing is expected to remain among the top 

recreation activities in the South.

Approximately 13 percent of adults in the South reported 

hunting in 2008 for a total of 230 million days (table 14). 

From 1999 to 2009, hunting participants increased 16 percent 

for small game and 25 percent for large game. Per capita 

participation is expected to decrease 26 to 42 percent over 

the next 50 years (table 15). Among the factors driving the 

decrease in participation rate include: increasing population 

density, growth in the Asian and Hispanic segments of 

society, higher levels of education, and decreasing forest land 

per capita. Despite the lower participation rate, the number of 

southern hunters is expected to increase by 8 percent under 

storyline B2 and 25 percent under storyline A1B. Total days 

of hunting are forecast to grow at about the same rate as 

hunters—8 to 24 percent.

Growing Importance of National Forests

National forest lands in the Interior Low Plateau section of 

the Appalachian-Cumberland highland include portions of 

the William B. Bankhead National Forest, portions of the 

Daniel Boone National Forest, and the entire Land Between 

the Lakes National Recreation Area. National forest lands 

in the Cumberland Plateau and Mountains section include 

most of the Daniel Boone National Forest and portions of 

the Jefferson National Forest. National forest lands in the 

Southern Ridge and Valley section include portions of the 

Cherokee National Forest and the Lee County portion of 

the Jefferson National Forest. National forest lands in the 

Northern Ridge and Valley section include portions of the 

Cherokee National Forest and most of the Jefferson National 

Forest and George Washington National Forest. National 

forest lands in the Blue Ridge Mountains section include 

portions of the Chattahoochee National Forest, the entire 

Nantahala National Forest and Pisgah National Forest, and 

portions of the George Washington National Forest and 

Jefferson National Forest.

Table 15—Forecasted recreational hunting by southern adults ≥16 years, 2008–2060, based on an expectation of high 

population and income growth, high population growth but low income growth, or low population growth and income 

growth 

Assumptions 

for population and 

income growth

Year

2008 2060 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

Percent of adults participating Percent decrease from 2008

High population and income growth 13.7 10.1 8 16 21 24 26

High population growth, low income growth 13.7 8.1 11 21 29 35 41

Low population and income growth 13.7 9.7 8 17 21 25 29

Million adult participants Percent increase from 2008

High population and income growth 10.8 13.5 8 12 15 20 25

High population growth, low income growth 11.0 12.2 5 7 9 20 11

Low population and income growth 10.8 11.6 7 7 7 9 8

Days per participant Percent increase (decrease) from 2008

High population and income growth 21.7 21.5 0 0 (1) (1) (1)

High population growth, low income growth 21.7 21.5 0 (1) (1) (1) (1)

Low population and income growth 21.7 21.7 0 0 0 0 0

Million days per year Percent increase from 2008

High population and income growth 230 286 8 11 15 19 24

High population growth, low income growth 234 255 5 7 8 9 9

Low population and income growth 230 248 7 7 7 8 8

Sources: http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/trends/research/sffpa2010.html; Bowker and others (2013).
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 75

Below are forecasts for visitation to the four major site types 

in the national forests of the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland: developed use day sites, overnight use developed 

sites, wilderness, and general forest areas.

Developed use day sites—Visitation to developed use 

day sites—all of which have some combination of built 

structures including picnic areas, playgrounds, shelters, 

boat ramps, toilets, parking lots—is the second most 

popular of site visit destinations in southern national 

forests, accounting for 6.5 million recreation visits in 2008. 

According to National Visitor Use Monitoring data for 2005 

to 2009, national forests with lands in the AppalachianCumberland highland reported about 3.5 million visits to 

these sites (note that some of the national forests included 

in the estimate contain lands outside of the AppalachianCumberland highland). Although the annual visits per group 

to these sites are projected to decrease by 5 to 8 percent 

across the storylines, total visits are projected to increase 

over the next 50 years: 35 percent under B2, 47 percent 

under A1B, and about 70 percent under A2.

Overnight developed use sites—With facilities such 

as cottages, recreational vehicle hookups, camp sites, 

electricity, and running water, overnight use developed 

sites on southern national forests accommodated about 2.3 

million visits in 2008. According to National Visitor Use 

Monitoring data for 2005 to 2009, national forests with lands 

in the Appalachian-Cumberland highland reported about 1.2 

million visits to these sites (note that some of the national 

forests included in the estimate contain lands outside of the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland). Annual visits per group 

are projected to decrease by 7 percent under storyline A2, 

and by 14 percent under storyline A1B. However, because of 

forecasted population growth, an increase of 30 to 64 percent 

is projected.

Wilderness—Annual visits per group to designated 

wilderness sites in southern national forests are expected 

to decrease slightly, 3 to 5 percent, over the next 50 years. 

This relatively stable per group annual visitation rate, when 

combined with population growth, suggests that visits to 

southern national forest wildernesses will likely experience 

higher growth than the other site types: between 38 percent 

(storyline B2) and 72 percent (storyline A2). Despite faster 

relative growth in visits, wilderness visits will likely remain 

the smallest in absolute terms.

General forest areas—Visits to general forest areas in 

southern national forests greatly exceeded recreation visits 

to the other three site types combined. The average annual 

visits per group are projected to decrease 12 to 24 percent 

by 2060. The largest decrease, expected under storyline 

A1B, would primarily be driven by increased household 

income. The negative relationship between visits and income 

forecasted under the A1B storyline is likely attributable 

to recreationists selecting more luxurious recreational 

destinations. The expected increase in population over the 

next 50 years would offset the drop in average visits per 

group, yielding increases of 22 percent for storylines A1B 

and B2, and 55 percent for storyline A2.

Overall, visits to national forests will likely grow, slightly 

lagging population growth. General forest area use density is 

expected to rise 22 to 55 percent as national forests substitute 

for private forests that succumb to development. This could 

be a concern for forest managers because general forest 

area activities—such as hunting, horseback riding, and offroading—often require more space between users for highquality experiences.

Summary

Despite projections of continued losses in forest acreage 

across the Appalachian-Cumberland highland and changing 

demographics, outdoor recreation will likely continue 

to grow in both numbers of participants and days of 

participation across all activities and venues, private and 

public. In general, the number of projected participants 

and days of participation are expected to increase at a rate 

near or somewhat below the rate of population growth in 

the South. Increases in projected participants and days of 

participation vary, depending on the specific recreation 

activity and the storyline.

Forecasted increases in pressure on national forest lands 

by recreationists either opposed to or unfamiliar with the 

underlying reasons for active forest management could result 

in conflicts with other interested publics, as well as increased 

debate about the role of active management on public lands 

(Bengston and Xu 2001, Wear and Greis 2002). Outreach and 

education efforts by public land managers and involvement 

of citizenry in the planning process could alleviate some of 

these pressures.

The projected growth in recreation use is likely to put 

increasing pressure on existing infrastructure, both built and 

natural. In some situations, investing in infrastructure could 

relieve congestion problems. Private forest owners could also 

help to meet demand by increasing recreation infrastructure 

and access on their land.

For a broader discussion of outdoor recreation in the South, 

see Bowker and others (2013).
76 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

Conclusions

As the dominant land use across the AppalachianCumberland highland, forest land is a source of economic 

revenue and provides for a variety of ecosystem goods and 

services, including water quality and quantity, biodiversity 

(plant and animal), wildlife habitat quality, forest products, 

and carbon storage. A detailed synthesis of data from the 

Southern Forest Futures Project (Wear and Greis 2013) 

revealed that Appalachian-Cumberland forests, along 

with goods and services that they provide, are on track to 

experience substantial changes over the next 50 years.

Changes in the characteristics of forests as well as the 

goods and services they provide will be driven by numerous 

factors, including future climate, socioeconomic factors, 

future forest product markets, tax policy, land ownership 

patterns (for example, transfers from forest industry to 

timber investment management organizations and real 

estate investment trusts), and land use patterns (such as the 

change from forest uses to urban uses). In the AppalachianCumberland highland, the relationships among these drivers 

of future forest conditions—although complex and, for 

the most part, unknown—are expected to impact a wide 

range of ecosystem goods and services and create new 

management challenges.

The forecasted increase in urban land uses at the expense of 

forests would have cascading effects on overall ecosystem 

structure and function, leading to increased habitat 

fragmentation and loss of habitat connectivity and potentially 

producing negative impacts on the diverse suite of flora 

and fauna on Appalachian-Cumberland landscapes. This 

is a particularly important issue for species of management 

concern and populations that are endemic to specific 

habitats. Forest fragmentation can also degrade water and 

air quality and increase the susceptibility of forest interiors 

to invasive plant and animal species (Fox and others 2011). 

An increase in urban land use would mean an increase 

in impervious surfaces, which can further degrade water 

quality and quantity. Population growth and expansion 

of urban centers can lead to an expanded wildland-urban 

interface; this and the increase in wildfire potential resulting 

from climate change would exacerbate wildfire concerns for 

land managers. Furthermore, changes in land use, population 

growth, and climate change could interact to increase the 

rate of infestation by invasive plants, which is of both an 

ecological and economic concern.

With continued growth of the human population across 

the Appalachian-Cumberland highland, demands on forest 

land for many outdoor recreation activities would continue 

to grow as well. Although the rate of participation in some 

activities is likely to decrease over the next 50 years, the 

increase in population would outpace those decreases so 

that overall participation would increase over time. For 

activities with increased participation rates, the added 

pressure of population increases would result in even 

larger increases in demand. A shrinking forest land base, 

regardless of degree, would result in more pressures and 

impacts on recreation use, both in overcrowding and in 

resource degradation. The result of a relatively fixed public 

land base and increasing demand would be a decrease in 

acres per capita available for recreation. On private lands, 

the decrease in forest acreage, along with fragmentation 

and the divestment of holding will likely result in less 

private land available for recreation.

Restoring ecosystem structure and function and improving 

forest resilience could be the keys to mitigating the negative 

effects of the changes that are predicted. Management 

challenges associated with ensuring that AppalachianCumberland forests continue to provide a full range of 

ecosystem goods and services could be resolved with the 

development of science-based management prescriptions, 

models, and tools. In situations where management/mitigation 

options have not been established, the key to sustainable 

management could be the synthesis of old research combined 

with multidisciplinary, issue-driven experimentation.

Management Implications

Appalachian-Cumberland forests are forecasted to 

experience dramatic changes over the next 50 years, 

including decreases in total area that are largely attributable 

to human population growth and land use changes associated 

with increased urbanization. Increased population and loss of 

forest land would likely put added pressure on the remaining 

forest land to supply the wide range of ecosystem goods and 

services that society expects, including—but not limited to—

water quality and quantity, wildlife habitat, wood products, 

carbon storage and sequestration, recreational opportunities, 

and natural settings.

The management implications of supplying ecosystem 

goods and services from a decreasing forested land base 

are daunting. The numerous threats to overall ecosystem 

structure and function forecasted to occur over the next 

50 years (2010 to 2060) can only be addressed if forest 

management takes a proactive approach to forest health (at 

a landscape scale) rather than reacting to events. Although 

the detailed effects that climate change could have on the 

diverse suite of Appalachian-Cumberland forest habitats 

is unknown, forest managers can rely on one certainty: the 

climate of future forests will be different from the climate 

that influenced the forests under their stewardship—the 

trend is for warmer temperatures, more unpredictable 

precipitation, and an increase in the number and extent of 

episodic drought events.
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | Chapter 5 77

On many Appalachian-Cumberland landscapes, the 

management focus is on the restoration of resistant and 

resilient forests. Restoration of resiliency, the ability of a 

system to return to predisturbance structure and function, 

is accomplished by maintaining or enhancing species 

and structural diversity at the stand and landscape levels. 

Adding complexity (Puettmann and others 2009) to the 

landscape through traditional and novel forest management 

techniques can improve resilience to climate change and 

disturbance events by increasing the response diversity—the 

number of ways in which a system can respond (Elmqvist 

and others 2003). Without high levels of response diversity, 

the ability of a given forest to adapt or recover from future 

disturbances will be diminished, reducing its ability to 

provide key goods and services.

The interacting effects of climate change with population 

growth and increased urbanization—and accompanying 

expansion of the wildland-urban interface—will require 

land managers to address the increase in the potential, 

severity, and extent of wildfire throughout the AppalachianCumberland highland. Hazardous fuel reduction efforts 

accomplished though controlled burning would reduce 

wildfire potential; however, as population increases, smoke 

management issues could make widespread controlled 

burning more difficult to implement.

The concepts and tools for restoring the stand and landscape 

attributes that promote resistance and resilience to climate 

change and other disturbance events are also the keys to 

slowing the spread and reducing the impacts of invasive 

plants across the Appalachian-Cumberland highland. 

Site-specific controls will continue to be important for 

slowing the spread of invasive plants; however, restoring 

and maintaining healthy, diverse, and complex ecosystems 

would also be helpful. Because invasive plants occur across 

all ownerships, eradication and control programs must be 

collaborative if they are to succeed at any meaningful scale 

(Fox and others 2011). As with any pressing issue, public 

awareness, knowledge, and cooperative programs, along with 

forest management and eradication efforts, will continue to 

be important factors limiting the spread of invasive plants.

Appalachian-Cumberland wildlife and plant diversity is 

substantial. The number of species listed as imperiled or of 

management concern ensures that wildlife conservation will 

continue to be a challenge over the next 50 years. Combining 

forest management and wildlife conservation efforts would help 

address many wildlife issues that are associated with habitat 

quality or habitat extent. Forest management prescriptions 

developed with input from wildlife experts would also be 

helpful in addressing habitat fragmentation and connectivity 

issues that threaten a variety of vertebrate species.

With population centers expanding and forest land being 

converted to urban uses, water quality and water quantity 

would become increasingly important issues in the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland; one example is the 

increase in impervious land area that accompanies continued 

urban development. Direct and indirect effects of a decreased 

water supply are numerous. In rural areas, decreasing water 

supply could hinder wildfire and structural fire suppression 

efforts. The projections of ever decreasing water supplies, 

coupled with increasing population and urbanization, 

portend a critical need for improved rural water supplies. 

State agencies such as the Virginia Department of Forestry 

have been proactive, implementing measures—such as the 

developed dry hydrant program—to ameliorate some of the 

issues of decreased water supply in rural areas and ensure 

that fire suppression efforts and other critical activities 

continue in spite of reduced supplies. Such efforts need to 

extend to all levels of government, raising awareness of 

the water-related issues associated with urban development 

and establishing bioindicator systems for monitoring issues 

associated with conversion and loss of forest land.

Because of their well-defined missions, mandates, and 

authorizing statutes, public lands have the highest potential 

for restoration activities centered on the conservation of 

biodiversity and complexity (Hunter 1999, Puettmann and 

others 2009). The vast majority of Appalachian-Cumberland 

forest land, however, is privately owned. Although not 

required to manage for multiple uses, these lands are, in fact, 

managed for a variety of resource benefits, including timber 

production (linked to investment and income potential), 

wildlife habitat, and recreation (Fox and other 2011). As 

such, they greatly contribute to all the benefits forest land 

provides: water quality and quantity, aesthetic values, clean 

air, economic and employment activities, wildlife habitat, 

and carbon storage.

Best management practices that outline voluntary and Statemandated forest operation activities exist throughout the 

Appalachian-Cumberland highland. When followed, best 

management practices can promote improved ecological 

conditions on private forest land. On a purely financial level, 

the viability of forest management investments is determined 

by harvest returns, rotation lengths, and tax incentives 

(Greene and others 2013). In the Appalachian-Cumberland 

highland, where timber prices are variable and rotation 

lengths are long, tax policy could be an effective mechanism 

for mitigating the parcelization and fragmentation forecasted 

to occur on private lands over the next 50 years. Although 

nomenclature changes across States, programs such as the 

present-use value tax program in North Carolina allow 

forests to be taxed at their present use rather than at their 

highest market value (such as developed land), provided they 
78 Chapter 5 | Effects on Forests and their Values

are under a management plan. Because Federal tax policies 

on forest ownership are relatively standard throughout the 

United States, it is the variability in tax rates and incentives 

among individual States that contributes greatly to the level 

that private forests are converted to other uses (Greene and 

others 2013). Pressures that result in conversion of forests to 

other uses, particularly those associated with development, 

are forecasted to increase into the foreseeable future. As 

found by Greene and others (2013), financial and tax 

incentive programs are successful not only in promoting 

sustainable forestry practices among private owners, but 

also in preventing land use conversion and parcelization. 

However, participation is limited by funding limits and by 

owner confusion about program requirements (Greene and 

others 2013), which could be overcome by educational and 

outreach programs and increases in funding mechanisms.

Appalachian-Cumberland forests are complex and diverse. 

These forests have proven resilient, recovering from 

the abusive land practices that occurred during the late 

19th and early 20th centuries. Although a broad view of 

the past suggests the forests are resilient to a variety of 

disturbances, forecasts suggest that environmental conditions 

(such as climate), nonnative insects and diseases, forest 

fragmentation, and increased societal pressures could create 

novel conditions that affect ecosystem structure and function 

and the ability of forests to respond to disturbance—the 

result being decreases in benefits from forests. Because the 

issues that will affect forests over the next 50 years cross 

ownership boundaries, an ‘all-lands approach’ would be 

the most effective way to ensure continued ecological and 

economic benefits.
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | literature cited 79

Abrams, M.D. 1992. Fire and the development of oak forests. 

Bioscience. 42: 346-353.

Achtemeier, G.L.; Jackson, W.; Hawkins, B. [and others]. 1998. 

The smoke dilemma: a head-on collision. In: Transactions of 

the sixty-third North American wildlife and natural resources 

conference. Orlando, FL: Wildlife Management Institute: 

415–421.

Arnold, C.L., Jr.; Gibbons, C.J. 1996. Impervious surface cover: 

the emergence of a key environmental indicator. Journal of the 

American Planning Association. 62: 243–258.

Bailey, R.G.; Avers, P.E.; King, T.; McNab, W.H., eds. 1994. 

Ecoregions and subregions of the United States map. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. Scale 1:7,500,000. 

Colored. Accompanied by a supplementary table of map unit 

descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, W.H. and Bailey, 

R.G. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service.

Barnes, T.G.; Madison, L.A.; Sole, J.D. [and others]. 1995. An 

assessment of habitat quality for northern bobwhite in tall fescue 

dominated fields. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 23: 231-237.

Bengston, D.N.; Xu, G. 2001. Attitudes toward ecosystem 

management in the United States, 1992-1998. Society and 

Natural Resources. 13: 471-487.

Bledsoe, B.P.; Watson, C.C. 2001. Effects of urbanization on 

channel instability. Journal of the American Water Resources 

Association. 37: 255–270.

Bowker, J.M.; Askew, A.; Cordell, H.K.; Bergstrom, J.C. 2013. 

Outdoor recreation. In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. The 

Southern Forest Futures Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 161-182.

Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous forests of Eastern North America. 

Caldwell, NJ: The Blackburn Press. 596 p.

Brose, P.; Schuler, T.; Van Learn, D.; Berst, J. 2001. Bringing fire 

back. The changing regimes of the Appalachian mixed-oak 

forest. Journal of Forestry. 99: 30-35.

Buchanan, M.L.; Hart, J.L. 2012. Canopy disturbance history of 

old-growth Quercus alba sites in the Eastern United States: 

examination of long-term trends and broad-scale patterns. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 267: 28-39.

Buckley, D.; Berry, J.K.; Spencer, T.; Carlton, D. 2006. 

Quantifying wildland fire risk in the South. 10 p. http://www.

southernwildfirerisk.com/downloads_reports/Sanborn%20-%20

Quantifying_Wildland_Fire_Risk_in_South.pdf. 

[Date accessed: August 8, 2013].

Butler, B.J.; Wear, D.N. 2013. Forest ownership dynamics of 

southern forests. In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. The Southern 

Forest Futures Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS178. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station: 103-121.

Caldwell, P.V.; Sun, G.; McNulty, S.G. [and others]. 2012. Impacts 

of impervious cover, water withdrawals, and climate change 

on river flows in the conterminous U.S. Hydrology and Earth 

System Sciences. 16: 2839-2857.

Calhoun, D.L.; Frick, E.A.; Buell, G.R. 2003. Effects of 

urban development on nutrient loads and streamflow, upper 

Chattahoochee River basin, Georgia, 1976–2001. In: Hatcher, 

K.J., ed. Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia water resources 

conference. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia, Institute of 

Ecology: 23-24.

Clinton, B.D.; Vose, J.M. 2006. Variation in stream water quality in 

an urban headwater stream in the Southern Appalachians. Water, 

Air, and Soil Pollution. 169: 331-353.

Cordell, H.K.; Betz, C.J.; Mou, S.H. 2013. Outdoor recreation in a 

shifting societal landscape. In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. The 

Southern Forest Futures Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 123-160.

Cranshaw, W.; Tisserat, N. 2012. Questions and answers 

about thousand cankers disease of walnut. Department of 

Bioagricultural Sciences and Pest Management-1177. Fort 

Collins, CO: Colorado State University. http://goldenplains.

colostate.edu/hort/hort_docs/thousand_canker_questions_

answers.pdf. [Date accessed: August 8, 2013].

Cryan, P.M.; Meteyer, C.U.; Boyles, J.G.; Blehert, D.S. 2010. 

Wing pathology of white-nose syndrome in bats suggests lifethreatening disruption of physiology. BMC Biology. 8(135): 1-8.

Delcourt, H.R.; Delcourt, P.A. 1997. Pre-Columbian Native 

American use of fire on Southern Appalachian landscapes. 

Conservation Biology. 11: 1010-1014.

Delcourt, P.A.; Delcourt, H.R. 1998. The influence of prehistoric 

human-set fires on oak-chestnut forests in the Southern 

Appalachians. Castanea. 63: 337-345.

Duerr, D.A.; Mistretta, P.A. 2013. Invasive pests—insects and 

diseases. In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest 

Futures Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 457-508.

Ellison, A.M.; Bank, B.S.; Clinton, B.D. [and others]. 2005. Loss 

of foundational species: consequences for the structure and 

dynamics of forested ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and 

Environment. 3: 479-486.

Elmqvist, T.; Folke, C.; Nyström, M. [and others]. 2003. Response 

diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology 

and Environment. 1(9): 488-494.

Evans, A.M.; Gregoire, T.G. 2007. A geographically variable model 

of hemlock woolly adelgid spread. Biological Invasions. 

9: 369-382.

Fenneman, N.M. 1938. Physiography of the Eastern United States. 

New York: McGraw-Hill. 691 p.

LITERATURE CITED
80 literature cited | Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests

Fesenmyer, K.A.; Christensen, N.L., Jr. 2010. Reconstructing 

Holocene fire history in a Southern Appalachian forest using soil 

charcoal. Ecology. 91: 662-670.

Flatley, W.T.; Lafon, C.W.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D. 2011. Climatic 

and topographic controls on patterns of fire in the Southern and 

Central Appalachian Mountains, USA. Landscape Ecology. 

26: 195-209.

Ford, C.R.; Elliott, K.J.; Clinton, B.D. [and others]. 2012. Forest 

dynamics following eastern hemlock mortality in the Southern 

Appalachians. Oikos. 121: 523-536.

Ford, C.R.; Vose, J.M. 2007. Tsuga canadensis (L.) Carr. mortality 

will impact hydrologic processes in Southern Appalachian forest 

ecosystems. Ecological Applications. 17: 1156-1167.

Fox, S.; Jackson, B.; Jackson, S. [and others]. 2011. Western North 

Carolina report card on forest sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

SRS-142. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station. 198 p.

Greenberg, C.H.; Keyser, T.L.; Speer, J. 2011. Temporal patterns 

of oak mortality in a Southern Appalachian forest (1991-2006). 

Natural Areas Journal. 31: 131-137.

Greenberg, C.H.; Walter, S.T. 2010. Fleshy fruit removal and 

nutritional composition of winter-fruiting plants: a comparison of 

non-native and native invasive and native species. Natural Areas 

Journal. 30: 312-321.

Greene, J.L.; Straka, T.J.; Cushing, T.L. 2013. Effect of taxes 

and financial incentive on family-owned forest land. In: Wear, 

D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures Project: 

technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station: 261-292.

Grimm, N.B.; Arrowsmith, J.R.; Eisinger, C. [and others]. 

2004. Effects of urbanization on nutrient biogeochemistry of 

aridland streams. In: Defries, R.; Asner, G.; Houghton, R., eds. 

Ecosystem interactions with land use change. Geophys. Monogr. 

Ser. 153. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union: 

129–146.

Guyette, R.P.; Muzika, R.M.; Dey, D.C. 2002. Dynamics of an 

anthropogenic fire regime. Ecosystems. 5: 472-486.

Guyette, R.P.; Spetich, M.A. 2003. Fire history of oak-pine forests 

in the Lower Boston Mountains, Arkansas, USA. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 180: 463-474.

Guyette, R.P.; Spetich, M.A.; Stambaugh, M.C. 2006. Historic fire 

regime dynamics and forcing factors in the Boston Mountains, 

Arkansas, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 234: 293-304.

Haavik, L.J.; Jones, J.S.; Galligan, L.D. [and others]. 2012. Oak 

decline and red oak borer outbreak impact in upland oak-hickory 

forests of Arkansas, USA. Forestry. 85: 341-352.

Hartman, K.M.; McCarthy, B.C. 2008. Changes in forest structure 

and species composition following invasion by a non-indigenous 

shrub, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii). Journal of the 

Torrey Botanical Society. 135: 245-259.

Holmes, T.P.; Aukemma, J.E.; Von Holle, B. [and others]. 2009. 

Economic impacts of invasive species in forests: past, present, 

and future. The year in ecology and conservation biology. 

Annals of the New York Academy of Science. 1162: 18–38.

Huggett, R.; Wear, D.N.; Ruhong, L. [and others]. 2013. Forecasts of

forest conditions. In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. The Southern 

Forest Futures Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS178. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Southern Research Station: 73-101.

Hull, J.C.; Scott, R.C. 1982. Plant succession on debris avalanches 

of Nelson County, Virginia. Castanea. 47: 158-176.

Hunter, M.L., Jr. 1999. Maintaining biodiversity in forest ecosystems. 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 698 p.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Contribution 

of working groups I, II, and III to the fourth assessment report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, 

Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 104 

p. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf. 

[Date accessed: November 13, 2013].

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. IPCC fourth 

assessment report: climate change 2007 (AR4). http://www.ipcc.

ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.htm. 

[Date accessed: November 13, 2013].

Jenkins, J.C.; Aber, J.D.; Canham, C.D. 1999. Hemlock woolly 

adelgid impacts on community structure and N cycling rates in 

eastern hemlock forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

29: 630-645.

Johnson, P.S.; Shifley, S.R.; Rogers, R. 2002. The ecology and 

silviculture of oaks. New York: CABI Publishing. 503 p.

Jones, R.L. 2005. Plant life of Kentucky: an illustrated guide 

to the vascular flora. Lexington, KY: University Press of 

Kentucky. 834 p.

Kauffman, B.W.; Clatterbuck, W.K. 2006. Forest management 

strategies to minimize the impact of gypsy moth. SP-678. 

Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Institute of 

Agriculture, UT Extension. 8 p.

Kliejunas, J. 2003. A pest risk assessment of Phytophthora 

ramorum in North America. Vallejo, CA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, State & Private Forestry. 11 p. http://

www.suddenoakdeath.org/pdf/RevisedPRA.8.03.pdf. 

[Date accessed: August 8, 2013].

Lafon, C.W.; Grissino-Mayer, H.D. 2007. Spatial patterns of 

fire occurrence in the Central Appalachian Mountains and 

implications for wildland fire management. Physical Geography. 

28: 1-20.

Lenat, D.R.; Crawford, J.K. 1994. Effects of land use on water 

quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina piedmont 

streams. Hydrobiologia. 294: 185-199.

Lockaby, G.; Nagy, C.; Vose, J.M. [and others]. 2013. Water and 

forests. In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest 

Futures Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 309-339.

Loftis, D.L. 1990a. A shelterwood method for regenerating red oak 

in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. Forest Science. 

36: 917-929.
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | literature cited 81

Loftis, D.L. 1990b. Predicting post-harvest performance of advance

red oak reproduction in the Southern Appalachians. Forest 

Science. 36: 908-916.

Lorch, J.M.; Meteyer, C.U.; Behr, M.J. [and others]. 2011. 

Experimental infection of bats with Geomyces destructans

causes white-nose syndrome. Nature. 480: 376-378.

Lorimer, C.G. 1980. Age structure and disturbance history of a 

Southern Appalachian virgin forest. Ecology. 61: 1169-1184.

Macie, E.A.; Hermansen, L.A., eds. 2002. Human influences on 

forest ecosystems—the Southern Wildland-Urban Interface 

Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–55. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 160 p.

McClure, M.S. 1990. The role of wind, birds, deer, and humans in 

the dispersal of hemlock woolly adelgid (Homoptera, Adelgidae). 

Environmental Entomology. 19: 36-43.

McClure, M.S.; Salom, S.M.; Shields, K.S. 2001. Hemlock woolly 

adelgid. FHTET-2001-03. Forest Health Technology Enterprise 

Team. Morgantown, WV: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service. 14 p.

McCullough, D.G.; Haack, R.A.; Hall, D.J. [and others]. 1995. 

Gypsy moth and oak silviculture in the North Central Region. 

Northern Hardwood Notes 7.12. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment 

Station. 6 p.

McCullough, D.G.; Schneeberger, N.F.; Katovich, S.A. 2008. 

Emerald ash borer. Pest Alert NA-PR-0204. Newton Square, PA: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern 

Area State and Private Forestry. 2 p.

McEwan, R.W.; Dyer, J.M.; Pederson, N. 2011. Multiple interacting 

ecosystem drivers: toward and encompassing hypothesis of oak 

forest dynamics across Eastern North America. Ecography. 

34: 244-256.

McNab, W.H.; Avers, P.E. 1994. Ecological subregions of the 

United States: section descriptions. Administrative Publication 

WO-WSA-5. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service. 267 p.

McNulty, S.; Myers, J.M.; Caldwell, P. [and others]. 2013. Climate 

change. In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest 

Futures Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 27-43.

Miller, J.H.; Lemke, D.; Coulston, J. 2013. The invasion of southern 

forests by nonnative plants: current and future occupation with 

impacts, management strategies, and mitigation approaches. 

In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station: 397-456.

Moore, W.C. 2012. The history of Tennessee. Tennessee Blue Book: 

361-459. http://www.tn.gov/sos/bluebook/11-12/WholeBBook.

pdf. [Date accessed: June 5, 2013].

Moser, W.K.; Hansen, M.; McWilliams, W. [and others]. 2006. 

Oak composition and structure in the Eastern United States. 

In: Dickinson, M.B., ed. Fire in eastern oak forests: delivering 

science to land managers. Proceedings of a conference; 2005 

November 15-17; Columbus, OH. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-1. 

Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station: 49-61.

Muzika, R.M.; Liebhold, A.M. 2000. A critique of silvicultural 

approaches to managing defoliating insects in North America. 

Agricultural and Forest Entomology. 2: 97-105.

Muzika, R.M.; Liebhold, A.M.; Gottschalk, K.W. 1998. Effects of 

silvicultural management on gypsy moth dynamics and impact: 

an eight year study. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-247. In: McManus, 

M.L.; Liebhold, A.M., eds. Proceedings: population dynamics, 

impacts, and integrated management of forest defoliating insects. 

Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 261-268.

NatureServe. 2011. An online encyclopedia of life. [Database]. 

2010. Version 7.1. Association for Biodiversity Information. 

Arlington, VA: NatureServe. http://www.natureserve.org/

getData/animalData.jsp. [Date accessed: 

February 15 - April 4, 2011].

NatureServe. 2012. An online encyclopedia of life. [Database]. 

2010. Version 7.1. Association for Biodiversity Information. 

Arlington, VA: NatureServe. http://www.natureserve.org/

getData/plantData.jsp. [Date accessed: October 15, 2011]. 

Oak, S.; Tainter, F.; Williams, J.; Starkey, D. 1996. Oak decline 

risk rating for the Southeastern United States. Annals of Forest 

Science. 53: 721-730.

O’Brien, J.G.; Mielke, M.E.; Oak, S.; Moltzan, B. 2002. Sudden 

oak death. Pest Alert NA-PR-02-02. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, State and Private 

Forestry. 2 p.

Paul, M.J.; Meyer, J.L. 2001. Streams in the urban landscape. 

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 

32: 333–365.

Puettmann, K.J.; Coates, K.D.; Messier, C. 2009. A critique of 

silviculture: managing for complexity. Washington, DC: Island 

Press. 189 p.

Ragenovich, I.R.; Mitchell, R.G. 2006. Balsam woolly adelgid. 

Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 118 (revised). Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 11 p.

Rizzo, D.M.; Garbelotto, M.; Davidson, J.M. [and others]. 2002. 

Phytophthora ramorum and sudden oak death in California: 

I. Host relationships. In: Verner, J., tech. ed. Proceedings of a 

symposium on the Kings River sustainable forest ecosystem 

project: progress and current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSWGTR-183. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 733-740.

Romero-Calcerrada, R.; Novillo, C.J.; Millington, J.D.A.; GomexJimenez, I. 2008. GIS analysis of spatial patterns of humancaused wildfire ignition risk in the SW of Madrid (Central 

Spain). Landscape Ecology. 23: 341-354.
82 literature cited | Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests

Schierenbeck, K.A. 2004. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera 

japonica) as an invasive species; history, ecology, and context. 

Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 23: 391-400.

Schoonover, J.E.; Lockaby, B.G.; Pan, S. 2005. Changes in chemical 

and physical properties of stream water across an urban-rural 

gradient in western Georgia. Urban Ecosystems. 8: 107-124.

Seybold, S.; Haugen, D.; O’Brien, J. [and others]. 2011. Thousand 

cankers disease. Pest Alert NA–PR–02–10. Newtown Square, 

PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern 

Area, State and Private Forestry. 2 p.

Sharov, A.; Leonards, D.; Liebold, A.M. [and others]. 2002. “Slow 

the spread”: a national program to contain the gypsy moth. 

Journal of Forestry. 100: 30-35.

Smalley, G.W. 1984. Classification and evaluation for forest sites 

in the Cumberland Mountains. GTR-SO-50. New Orleans: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Forest 

Experiment Station. 89 p.

Smith, D.W. 1994. The Southern Appalachian hardwood region. In: 

Barrett, J.W., ed. Regional Silviculture of the United States. 3rd

ed. New York: Wiley and Sons: 173-225.

Smith, W.B.; Miles, P.D.; Perry, C.H.; Pugh, S.A. 2009. Forest 

resources of the United States, 2007. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-78. 

Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, Washington Office. 336 p.

Snyder, C.D.; Young, J.A.; Lemarie, D.P. [and others]. 2002. 

Influence of eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) forests 

on aquatic invertebrate assemblages in headwater streams. 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 59: 262-275.

Spaulding, H.L.; Rieske, L.K. 2010. The aftermath of an invasion: 

structure and composition of Central Appalachian hemlock 

forests following establishment of the hemlock woolly adelgid, 

Adelges tsugae. Biological Invasions. 12: 3135-3143.

Spetich, M.A.; Perry, R.W.; Harper, C.A.; Clark, S.L. 2011. Fire in 

eastern hardwood forests through 14,000 years. In: Greenberg, 

C.H.; Collins, B.S.; Thompson, F.R., III., eds. Sustaining 

young forest communities: ecology and management of early 

successional habitats in the central hardwood region, USA. 

Netherlands: Springer Dordrecht: 41-58.

Stanturf, J.A.; Goodrick, S.L. 2013. Fire. In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, 

J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures Project: technical report. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 509-542.

Sun, G.; Lockaby, B.G. 2012. Water quantity and quality at the 

urban-rural interface. In: Laband, D.N.; Lockaby, B.G.; Zipperer, 

W., eds. Urban-rural interfaces: linking people and nature. 

Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science 

Society of America, Soil Science Society of America: 26-45.

Trani Griep, M.; Collins, B. 2013. Wildlife and forest communities. 

In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station: 341-396.

Trotter, R.T.; Shields, K.S. 2009. Variation in winter survival of the 

invasive hemlock woolly adelgid (Hemiptera: Adelgidae) across 

the Eastern United States. Population Ecology. 38: 557-587.

Turner, G.G.; Reeder, D.M.; Coleman, J.T.H. 2011. A five-year 

assessment of mortality and geographic spread of white-nose 

syndrome in North American bats and a look to the future. Bat 

Research News. 52: 13-27.

Turner, M.G.; Wear, D.N.; Flamm, R.O. 1996. Land ownership and 

land-cover change in the Southern Appalachian Highlands and 

the Olympic Peninsula. Ecological Applications. 6: 1150-1172.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. Census of population and housing. 

1990 Census Summary Tape File 1. http://www2.census.gov/

census_1990/1990STF1.html#1A. [Date accessed: 

September 23, 2009].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008a. SC-EST2008-alldata6: annual State 

resident population estimates for 6 race groups (5 race alone 

groups and one group with two or more race groups) by age, 

sex, and hispanic origin: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008. http://

www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2008/tables/NSTEST2008-01.csv. [Date accessed: September 23, 2009].

U.S. Census Bureau. 2008b. CC-EST2008-ALLDATA-[ST-FIPS]: 

annual county resident population estimates by age, sex, race, 

and hispanic origin: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008. http://www.

census.gov/popest/data/counties/asrh/2011/CC-EST2011-alldata.

html. [Date accessed: September 23, 2009]. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 2010. APHIS list of regulated hosts and 

plants proven or associated with Phytophthora ramorum. 

(January 2012). http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_

pest_info/pram/downloads/pdf_files/usdaprlist.pdf. 

[Date accessed: June 5, 2013].

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2009. 

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE 

dataset, various years). Athens, GA: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station, RWU4953. http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/ trends/nsre-directory/index.

html. [Date accessed: December 4, 2012].

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. 2012. 

Forest Inventory Data Online web-application version: FIDO 

1.5.15. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. http://apps.fs.fed.us/fia/fido/

index.html. [Date accessed: February 3, 2012].

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Southern 

Region. 2013. American Chestnut Restoration Project. http://

www.fs.fed.us/r8/chestnut/. [Date accessed: August 8, 2013].

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, Southern 

Region, Daniel Boone National Forest. 2013. http://www.

fs.usda.gov/detail/dbnf/about-forest/?cid=fsbdev3_032665. [Date 

accessed: August 8, 2013].

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation 

Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource 

areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. 

Agric. Handb. 296. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 669 p.
Outlook for Appalachian-Cumberland Forests | literature cited 83

Verburg, P.H.; de Koning, G.H.J.; Kok, K. [and others]. 1999. A 

spatial explicit allocation procedure for modeling the pattern 

of land use change based upon actual land use. Ecological 

Modeling. 116: 45-61.

Vose, J.M.; Wear, D.N.; Mayfield, A.E., III; Nelson, D. 2013. 

Hemlock woolly adelgid in the Southern Appalachians: control 

strategies, ecological impacts, and potential management 

responses. Forest Ecology and Management. 291: 209-219.

Wade, D.D.; Brenner, J.D. 1995. Florida’s solution to liability 

issues. In: Weise, D.R.; Martin, R.E., tech. coords. The Biswell 

symposium: fire issues and solutions in urban interface and 

wildland ecosystems. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW–GTR–158. Albany, 

CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station: 131–138.

Wear, D.N. 2013. Forecasts of land uses. In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, 

J.G., eds. The Southern Forest Futures Project: technical report. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 45-71.

Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G. 2002. Southern Forest Resource 

Assessment: summary of findings. Journal of Forestry. 100: 6-14.

Wear, D.N.; Gries, J.G., eds. 2013. The Southern Forest Futures 

Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. Asheville, 

NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern 

Research Station. 542 p.

Wear, D.N.; Huggett, R.; Greis, J.G. 2013. Constructing alternative 

futures. In: Wear, D.N.; Greis, J.G., eds. The Southern Forest 

Futures Project: technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-178. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 

Southern Research Station: 11-26.

Webster, C.R.; Jenkins, M.A.; Shibu, J. 2006. Woody invaders 

and the challenges they pose to forest ecosystems in the Eastern 

United States. Journal of Forestry. 104: 366-374

Webster, J.R.; Morkeski, K.; Wojculewski, C.A. [and others]. 

2012. Effects of hemlock mortality on streams in the Southern 

Appalachian Mountains. American Midland Naturalist. 

168: 112-131.

Weidenhamer, J.D.; Callaway, R.M. 2010. Direct and indirect 

effects of invasive plants on soil chemistry and ecosystem 

function. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 36: 59-69.

Wharton, M.E.; Barbour, R.W. 1973. Trees and shrubs of Kentucky. 

Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. 582 p.

White, P.S.; Collins, B.; Wein, G.R. 2011. Natural disturbances and 

early successional habitats. In: Greenberg, C.H.; Collins, B.S.; 

Thompson, F.R. III, eds. Sustaining young forest communities: 

ecology and management of early successional habitats in the 

central hardwood region, USA. London, UK: Springer. 318 p.

Yarnell, S.L. 1998. The Southern Appalachians: a history of 

the landscape. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-18. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 45 p.

Keyser, T.; Malone, J.; Cotton, C.; and Lewis, J. 2014. Outlook for 

Appalachian-Cumberland forests: a subregional report from the Southern 

Forest Futures Project. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-188. Asheville, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 83 p.

The U.S. Appalachian-Cumberland highland consists of about 62.3 million 

acres in portions of Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, 

and Virginia; and is divided into five sections—Blue Ridge Mountains; Interior 

Low Plateau; Northern Ridge and Valley; Southern Ridge and Valley; and 

Cumberland Plateau and Mountains. Appalachian-Cumberland forests provide a 

multitude of ecological services and societal benefits. This publication presents 

results from the Southern Forest Futures Project specific to the AppalachianCumberland subregion, along with associated challenges to forest management. 

Forecasted scenarios suggest that environmental conditions, nonnative 

insects and diseases, forest fragmentation, and increased societal pressure on 

forest land could create novel conditions that affect ecosystem structure and 

function. Continued changes in the societal forces that shape forest conditions, 

including urbanization, have the potential to affect many of the ecosystem 

services provided by Appalachian-Cumberland forests, including commercial 

and noncommercial forest products (such as timber harvesting and mushroom 

collecting), water quantity and quality, recreation, wildlife habitat, and 

biological complexity. 

Keywords: Appalachian-Cumberland, conservation, forest management, 

Southern Forest Futures Project.

You may request additional copies of this publication by email at pubrequest@fs.fed.us.

Number of copies is limited to two per person.

How do you rate this publication?

Scan this code to submit your feedback 

or go to www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubeval
Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits 

discrimination against its customers, employees, and 

applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, 

national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, 

religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, 

marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or 

part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance 

program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any 

program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not 

all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment 

activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your 

agency’s EEO Counselor (click the hyperlink for list of EEO Counselors) 

within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or 

in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found 

online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, 

complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, found 

online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at 

any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may 

also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the 

form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-99410, by fax 

(202) 690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov.

Persons with Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities 

and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact 

USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 

845-6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please 

see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by 

email. If you require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).